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 |
A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-10-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lehana Thabane, Jinhui Ma, Rong Chu, Ji Cheng, Afisi Ismaila, Lorena P Rios, Reid Robson, Marroon Thabane, Lora Giangregorio, Charles H Goldsmith |
| Abstract |
Pilot studies for phase III trials - which are comparative randomized trials designed to provide preliminary evidence on the clinical efficacy of a drug or intervention - are routinely performed in many clinical areas. Also commonly know as "feasibility" or "vanguard" studies, they are designed to assess the safety of treatment or interventions; to assess recruitment potential; to assess the feasibility of international collaboration or coordination for multicentre trials; to increase clinical experience with the study medication or intervention for the phase III trials. They are the best way to assess feasibility of a large, expensive full-scale study, and in fact are an almost essential pre-requisite. Conducting a pilot prior to the main study can enhance the likelihood of success of the main study and potentially help to avoid doomed main studies. The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed examination of the key aspects of pilot studies for phase III trials including: 1) the general reasons for conducting a pilot study; 2) the relationships between pilot studies, proof-of-concept studies, and adaptive designs; 3) the challenges of and misconceptions about pilot studies; 4) the criteria for evaluating the success of a pilot study; 5) frequently asked questions about pilot studies; 7) some ethical aspects related to pilot studies; and 8) some suggestions on how to report the results of pilot investigations using the CONSORT format. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 116 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 21 | 18% |
| Australia | 8 | 7% |
| Ireland | 8 | 7% |
| Canada | 7 | 6% |
| United States | 7 | 6% |
| Mexico | 3 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 3 | 3% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Iraq | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 49 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 62 | 53% |
| Scientists | 37 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3,957 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 30 | <1% |
| United States | 23 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 19 | <1% |
| Canada | 14 | <1% |
| Brazil | 7 | <1% |
| Spain | 5 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 4 | <1% |
| Germany | 4 | <1% |
| South Africa | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 24 | <1% |
| Unknown | 3824 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 767 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 599 | 15% |
| Researcher | 438 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 311 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 237 | 6% |
| Other | 786 | 20% |
| Unknown | 819 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 790 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 362 | 9% |
| Psychology | 314 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 313 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 270 | 7% |
| Other | 897 | 23% |
| Unknown | 1011 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 03 October 2023.
All research outputs
#411,040
of 25,611,630 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#33
of 2,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,359
of 174,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,611,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 174,435 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.