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 |
The use of the cluster randomized crossover design in clinical trials: protocol for a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-86 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah J Arnup, Andrew B Forbes, Brennan C Kahan, Katy E Morgan, Steve McDonald, Joanne E McKenzie |
| Abstract |
The cluster randomized crossover (CRXO) design is gaining popularity in trial settings where individual randomization or parallel group cluster randomization is not feasible or practical. In a CRXO trial, not only are clusters of individuals rather than individuals themselves randomized to trial arms, but also each cluster participates in each arm of the trial at least once in separate periods of time.We will review publications of clinical trials undertaken in humans that have used the CRXO design. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize, as reported: the motivations for using the CRXO design, the values of the CRXO design parameters, the justification and methodology for the sample size calculations and analyses, and the quality of reporting the CRXO design aspects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 26% |
| Researcher | 8 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 23% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 34% |
| Mathematics | 5 | 14% |
| Psychology | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
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 10 September 2014.
All research outputs
#17,726,563
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,701
of 1,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,826
of 231,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 231,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.