↓ Skip to main content

Lessons in participant retention in the course of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Lessons in participant retention in the course of a randomized controlled clinical trial
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-7-706
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olubukola T Idoko, Olumuyiwa A Owolabi, Aderonke A Odutola, Olatunde Ogundare, Archibald Worwui, Yauba Saidu, Alison Smith-Sanneh, Abdoulie Tunkara, Gibbi Sey, Assan Sanyang, Philip Mendy, MartinO C Ota

Abstract

Clinical trials are increasingly being conducted as new products seek to enter the market. Deployment of such interventions is based on evidence obtained mainly from the gold standard of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCCT). A crucial factor in the ability of RCCTs to provide credible and generalisable data is sample size and retention of the required number of subjects at completion of the follow-up period. However, recruitment and retention in clinical trials are hindered by prevalent peculiar challenges in Africa that need to be circumvented. This article shares experiences from a phase II trial that recorded a high retention rate at 14 months follow-up at a new clinical trial site.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Gambia 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 27%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 February 2015.
All research outputs
#18,401,956
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,015
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,267
of 255,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#88
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 255,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.