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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
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
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.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 20% |
Canada | 1 | 20% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
Argentina | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
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
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.