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 |
Placebo-controlled clinical trials: how trial documents justify the use of randomisation and placebo
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-16-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tapani Keränen, Arja Halkoaho, Emmi Itkonen, Anna-Maija Pietilä |
| Abstract |
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) involve procedures such as randomisation, blinding, and placebo use, which are not part of standard medical care. Patients asked to participate in RCTs often experience difficulties in understanding the meaning of these and their justification. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 | 6 | 20% |
| Canada | 4 | 13% |
| United States | 2 | 7% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Oman | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Russia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 57% |
| Scientists | 7 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 65 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 11 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,250,018
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#86
of 1,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,354
of 359,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 359,708 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.