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
| Title |
Accounting for center in the Early External Cephalic Version trials: an empirical comparison of statistical methods to adjust for center in a multicenter trial with binary outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-15-377 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angela Reitsma, Rong Chu, Julia Thorpe, Sarah McDonald, Lehana Thabane, Eileen Hutton |
| Abstract |
Clustering of outcomes at centers involved in multicenter trials is a type of center effect. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement recommends that multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should account for center effects in their analysis, however most do not. The Early External Cephalic Version (EECV) trials published in 2003 and 2011 stratified by center at randomization, but did not account for center in the analyses, and due to the nature of the intervention and number of centers, may have been prone to center effects. Using data from the EECV trials, we undertook an empirical study to compare various statistical approaches to account for center effect while estimating the impact of external cephalic version timing (early or delayed) on the outcomes of cesarean section, preterm birth, and non-cephalic presentation at the time of birth. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 6% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |