The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
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 | |
| 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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 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 | 49 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 21% |
| Researcher | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
| Philosophy | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
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
#21,157,205
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,551
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,012
of 324,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#50
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 324,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.