↓ Skip to main content

N-of-1 randomized trials for psychological and health behavior outcomes: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
N-of-1 randomized trials for psychological and health behavior outcomes: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0071-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan A. Shaffer, Louis Falzon, Ken Cheung, Karina W. Davidson

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials are the sine qua non of causal inference; however, heterogeneity of treatment effects for many chronic conditions and for many symptoms often limits their utility. Single-patient studies in which patients select a treatment after trying a randomized sequence of treatments (i.e., multiple crossover trials) offer an alternative to traditional randomized controlled trials by providing scientifically valid results in a practical manner that can be used by patients and their providers to decide upon their personally optimal treatment. Although N-of-1 trials have been used in the medical literature, their use for interventions that consist of psychological or health behavior outcomes is unknown. This systematic review thus aims to describe the interventions and outcomes and assess the quality of N-of-1 trials for psychological or health behavior outcomes. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the six databases in the Cochrane Library) will be searched using all relevant subject headings and free-text terms to represent N-of-1 trials and psychological or behavioral interventions. Full text review and bibliography searching will be conducted. Unpublished studies will be sought by searching trial registries and contacting authors of included studies. Eligibility criteria are the following: population, all human participants for whom N-of-1 trials with psychological or health behavior outcomes have been conducted; interventions, all interventions for which N-of-1 trials have been conducted; comparison, placebo or active treatment control; and outcome, psychological and health behavior outcomes including self-perceived disease severity and psychological phenomena such as mood and affect. Studies that do not contain sufficient trial detail, describe only design or statistical analytic issues in N-of-1 trials without presentation of an N-of-1 trial itself, and/or are not written in the English language are ineligible. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment will be conducted by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion. This systematic review will describe the interventions and outcomes and assess the quality of N-of-1 trials for psychological or health behavior outcomes. The results will clarify the use of this research methodology in the health psychology and behavioral medicine literature and may pave the way for additional N-of-1 trials to be conducted. PROSPERO CRD42015017853.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Other 7 14%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 31%
Psychology 7 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 September 2020.
All research outputs
#4,229,660
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#885
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,785
of 264,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 264,815 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 53% of its contemporaries.