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 |
Improving the efficiency of trials using innovative pilot designs: the next phase in the conduct and reporting of pilot and feasibility studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40814-017-0159-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lehana Thabane, Gillian Lancaster |
| Abstract |
With continuously increasing costs of conducting trials, use of innovative approaches-such as pragmatic trials, registry-based randomised trials, adaptive trials, personalised medicine trials, platform trials, and basket trials-to the design and conduct of clinical trials has been advocated as one of the most promising solutions. In this editorial, we propose that the next wave of feasibility or pilot studies should focus on assessing the feasibility of trials using these designs, which we see as an imperative in order to unleash their potential to reduce trial costs and accelerate the drug development process and the search for best treatments, so that the right treatments can be delivered as soon as possible to the right patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 | 5 | 31% |
| Canada | 3 | 19% |
| Cyprus | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 7 | 44% |
| Members of the public | 7 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 29% |
| Psychology | 6 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,718,642
of 23,510,717 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#217
of 1,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,961
of 314,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#8
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,510,717 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 314,574 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 79% 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 done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.