↓ Skip to main content

Creating groups with similar expected behavioural response in randomized controlled trials: a fuzzy cognitive map approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Creating groups with similar expected behavioural response in randomized controlled trials: a fuzzy cognitive map approach
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-130
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe J Giabbanelli, Rik Crutzen

Abstract

Controlling bias is key to successful randomized controlled trials for behaviour change. Bias can be generated at multiple points during a study, for example, when participants are allocated to different groups. Several methods of allocations exist to randomly distribute participants over the groups such that their prognostic factors (e.g., socio-demographic variables) are similar, in an effort to keep participants' outcomes comparable at baseline. Since it is challenging to create such groups when all prognostic factors are taken together, these factors are often balanced in isolation or only the ones deemed most relevant are balanced. However, the complex interactions among prognostic factors may lead to a poor estimate of behaviour, causing unbalanced groups at baseline, which may introduce accidental bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Psychology 5 11%
Computer Science 3 6%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 December 2014.
All research outputs
#989,027
of 10,202,788 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#148
of 943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,875
of 250,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,202,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 250,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 63% of its contemporaries.