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 |
Standardisation of information submitted to an endpoint committee for cause of death assignment in a cancer screening trial – lessons learnt from CAP (Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-15-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Naomi J Williams, Elizabeth M Hill, Siaw Yein Ng, Richard M Martin, Chris Metcalfe, Jenny L Donovan, Simon Evans, Laura J Hughes, Charlotte F Davies, Freddie C Hamdy, David E Neal, Emma L Turner, CAP Cause of Death Committee** |
| Abstract |
In cancer screening trials where the primary outcome is target cancer-specific mortality, the unbiased determination of underlying cause of death (UCD) is crucial. To minimise bias, the UCD should be independently verified by expert reviewers, blinded to death certificate data and trial arm. We investigated whether standardising the information submitted for UCD assignment in a population-based randomised controlled trial of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer reduced the reviewers' ability to correctly guess the trial arm. |
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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Kazakhstan | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Researcher | 14 | 15% |
| Professor | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 21% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 25% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
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 05 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,928,506
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,348
of 2,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,289
of 351,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#14
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 351,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.