↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Variability in research ethics review of cluster randomized trials: a scenario-based survey in three countries

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Variability in research ethics review of cluster randomized trials: a scenario-based survey in three countries
Published in
Trials, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-48
Pubmed ID
24495542
Authors

Monica Taljaard, Jamie C Brehaut, Charles Weijer, Robert Boruch, Allan Donner, Martin P Eccles, Andrew D McRae, Raphael Saginur, Merrick Zwarenstein, Jeremy M Grimshaw

Abstract

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) present unique ethical challenges. In the absence of a uniform standard for their ethical design and conduct, problems such as variability in procedures and requirements by different research ethics committees will persist. We aimed to assess the need for ethics guidelines for CRTs among research ethics chairs internationally, investigate variability in procedures for research ethics review of CRTs within and among countries, and elicit research ethics chairs' perspectives on specific ethical issues in CRTs, including the identification of research subjects. The proper identification of research subjects is a necessary requirement in the research ethics review process, to help ensure, on the one hand, that subjects are protected from harm and exploitation, and on the other, that reviews of CRTs are completed efficiently.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 4%
Malaysia 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Master 9 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 12%
Other 6 12%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Philosophy 5 10%
Psychology 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 7 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 February 2014.
All research outputs
#18,363,356
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#4,742
of 5,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,407
of 307,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#64
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 307,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is provided by Altmetric.