↓ Skip to main content

Participants’ understanding of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) through informed consent procedures in the RCT for breast cancer screening, J-START

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Participants’ understanding of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) through informed consent procedures in the RCT for breast cancer screening, J-START
Published in
Trials, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-375
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoko Narikawa Shiono, Ying-Fang Zheng, Masahiro Kikuya, Masaaki Kawai, Takanori Ishida, Shinichi Kuriyama, Noriaki Ohuchi

Abstract

It is often difficult to enrol healthy volunteers into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) as there are barriers to participants' proper understanding of a trial. This study aimed to evaluate degrees of understanding of the informed consent (IC) process among healthy volunteers who participated in an RCT. Additionally, factors associated with degree of understanding were investigated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Professor 5 7%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Psychology 5 7%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 13 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 September 2014.
All research outputs
#12,560,046
of 21,321,525 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#3,038
of 5,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,217
of 224,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,525 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 224,488 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them