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 |
The PREEMPT study - evaluating smartphone-assisted n-of-1 trials in patients with chronic pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-015-0590-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Colin Barr, Maria Marois, Ida Sim, Christopher H Schmid, Barth Wilsey, Deborah Ward, Naihua Duan, Ron D Hays, Joshua Selsky, Joseph Servadio, Marc Schwartz, Clyde Dsouza, Navjot Dhammi, Zachary Holt, Victor Baquero, Scott MacDonald, Anthony Jerant, Ron Sprinkle, Richard L Kravitz |
| Abstract |
Chronic pain is prevalent, costly, and clinically vexatious. Clinicians typically use a trial-and-error approach to treatment selection. Repeated crossover trials in a single patient (n-of-1 trials) may provide greater therapeutic precision. N-of-1 trials are the most direct way to estimate individual treatment effects and are useful in comparing the effectiveness and toxicity of different analgesic regimens. The goal of the PREEMPT study is to test the 'Trialist' mobile health smartphone app, which has been developed to make n-of-1 trials easier to accomplish, and to provide patients and clinicians with tools for individualizing treatments for chronic pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 3 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| Canada | 2 | 18% |
| France | 1 | 9% |
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 218 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 214 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 44 | 20% |
| Unknown | 51 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 13% |
| Psychology | 24 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 13% |
| Unknown | 62 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 23 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,101,299
of 24,682,395 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#625
of 6,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,051
of 260,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#7
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,682,395 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,326 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 90% 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 260,339 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.