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 |
Choosing sensitivity analyses for randomised trials: principles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tim P Morris, Brennan C Kahan, Ian R White |
| Abstract |
Sensitivity analyses are an important tool for understanding the extent to which the results of randomised trials depend upon the assumptions of the analysis. There is currently no guidance governing the choice of sensitivity analyses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 Kingdom | 7 | 19% |
| United States | 6 | 16% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 54% |
| Scientists | 13 | 35% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Qatar | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 27% |
| Engineering | 6 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 5 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 24% |
| Unknown | 23 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 25 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,621,666
of 25,554,853 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#192
of 2,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,049
of 321,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,554,853 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 321,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.