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 |
Registration of randomized controlled trials in nursing journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Integrity and Peer Review, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41073-017-0036-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard Gray, Ashish Badnapurkar, Eman Hassanein, Donna Thomas, Laileah Barguir, Charley Baker, Martin Jones, Daniel Bressington, Ellie Brown, Annie Topping |
| Abstract |
Trial registration helps minimize publication and reporting bias. In leading medical journals, 96% of published trials are registered. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of randomized controlled trials published in key nursing journals that met criteria for timely registration. We reviewed all RCTs published in three (two general, one mental health) nursing journals between August 2011 and September 2016. We classified the included trials as: 1. Not registered, 2. Registered but not reported in manuscript, 3. Registered retrospectively, 4. Registered prospectively (before the recruitment of the first subject into the trial). 5. Timely registration (as 4 but the trial identification number is reported in abstract). We identified 135 trials published in the three included journals. The majority (n = 78, 58%) were not registered. Thirty-three (24%) were retrospectively registered. Of the 24 (18%) trials that were prospectively registered, 11 (8%) met the criteria for timely registration. There is an unacceptable difference in rates of trial registration between leading medical and nursing journals. Concerted effort is required by nurse researchers, reviewers and journal editors to ensure that all trials are registered in a timely way. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 10 | 43% |
| Canada | 2 | 9% |
| Australia | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 22% |
| Scientists | 3 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 30 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,289,303
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#58
of 116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,691
of 311,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 311,997 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.