↓ Skip to main content

What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2006
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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
671 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
482 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
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
What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies
Published in
Trials, April 2006
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-7-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison M McDonald, Rosemary C Knight, Marion K Campbell, Vikki A Entwistle, Adrian M Grant, Jonathan A Cook, Diana R Elbourne, David Francis, Jo Garcia, Ian Roberts, Claire Snowdon

Abstract

A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 482 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 1%
United States 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 466 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 98 20%
Student > Master 82 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 15%
Student > Bachelor 46 10%
Other 31 6%
Other 79 16%
Unknown 74 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 185 38%
Psychology 35 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 6%
Social Sciences 23 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 4%
Other 89 18%
Unknown 102 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,090,177
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#247
of 5,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,678
of 66,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 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 5,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 66,345 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.