↓ Skip to main content

Quality assurance and best research practices for non-regulated veterinary clinical studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
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
Quality assurance and best research practices for non-regulated veterinary clinical studies
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-1153-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Davies, C. London, B. Lascelles, M. Conzemius

Abstract

Veterinary clinical trials generate data that advance the transfer of knowledge from clinical research to clinical practice in human and veterinary settings. The translational success of non-regulated and regulated veterinary clinical studies is dependent upon the reliability and reproducibility of the data generated. Clinician-scientists that conduct veterinary clinical studies would benefit from a commitment to research quality assurance and best practices throughout all non-regulated and regulated research environments. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidance documents from the FDA provides principles and procedures designed to safeguard data integrity, reliability and reproducibility. While these documents maybe excessive for clinical studies not intended for regulatory oversight it is important to remember that research builds on research. Thus, the quality and accuracy of all data and inference generated throughout the research enterprise remains vulnerable to the impact of potentially unreliable data generated by the lowest performing contributors. The purpose of this first of a series of statement papers is to outline and reference specific quality control and quality assurance procedures that should, at least in part, be incorporated into all veterinary clinical studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Other 2 7%
Librarian 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 9 30%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 August 2021.
All research outputs
#7,026,344
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#546
of 3,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,606
of 287,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#20
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,064 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 287,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.