↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of two data collection processes in clinical studies: electronic and paper case report forms

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of two data collection processes in clinical studies: electronic and paper case report forms
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anaïs Le Jeannic, Céline Quelen, Corinne Alberti, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski

Abstract

Electronic Case Report Forms (eCRFs) are increasingly chosen by investigators and sponsors of clinical research instead of the traditional pen-and-paper data collection (pCRFs). Previous studies suggested that eCRFs avoided mistakes, shortened the duration of clinical studies and reduced data collection costs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Russia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 123 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 24%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 9 7%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 24 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 26%
Computer Science 13 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Other 33 26%
Unknown 28 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,130,113
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#924
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,136
of 304,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#10
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.