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 |
Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-118 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melanie L Bell, Mallorie Fiero, Nicholas J Horton, Chiu-Hsieh Hsu |
| Abstract |
Missing outcome data is a threat to the validity of treatment effect estimates in randomized controlled trials. We aimed to evaluate the extent, handling, and sensitivity analysis of missing data and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in top tier medical journals, and compare our findings with previous reviews related to missing data and ITT in RCTs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Singapore | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 344 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 337 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 66 | 19% |
| Researcher | 53 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 55 | 16% |
| Unknown | 84 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 19% |
| Psychology | 33 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 23 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 6% |
| Other | 62 | 18% |
| Unknown | 110 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 19 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,610,131
of 23,130,383 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#215
of 2,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,456
of 364,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,130,383 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 364,447 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 70% of its contemporaries.