↓ Skip to main content

Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
45 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise
Published in
Trials, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2440-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Rosala-Hallas, Aneel Bhangu, Jane Blazeby, Louise Bowman, Mike Clarke, Trudie Lang, Mona Nasser, Nandi Siegfried, Karla Soares-Weiser, Matt R. Sydes, Duolao Wang, Junhua Zhang, Paula R. Williamson

Abstract

Methodological research into the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials is essential to optimise the process. UK specialists in the field have established a set of top priorities in aid of this research. These priorities, however, may not be reflected in the needs of similar research in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) with different healthcare provision, resources and research infrastructure. The aim of the study was to identify the top priorities for methodological research in LMICs to inform further research and ultimately to improve clinical trials in these regions. An online, two-round survey was conducted from December 2016 to April 2017 amongst researchers and methodologists working on trials in LMICs. The first round required participants to suggest between three and six topics which they felt were priorities for trial methodological research in LMICs. The second round invited participants to grade the importance of a compulsory list of topics suggested by four or more individuals, and an optional list of the remaining topics. Rounds 1 and 2 were completed by 412 and 314 participants, respectively. A wide spread of years of experience, discipline, current country of residence, origin of trials training and area of involvement in trials was reported. The topics deemed most important for methodological research were: choosing appropriate outcomes to measure and training of research staff. By presenting these top priorities we have the foundations of a global health trials methodological research agenda which we hope will foster future research in specific areas in order to increase and improve trials in LMICs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 26%
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Other 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 29%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 26 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 17 March 2021.
All research outputs
#824,246
of 20,513,123 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#161
of 5,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,423
of 393,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,513,123 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 5,278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 393,831 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them