↓ Skip to main content

Quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials on recurrent spontaneous abortion in China

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials on recurrent spontaneous abortion in China
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0665-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jie Gao, Gaopi Deng, Yunyun Hu, Yanxi Huang, Liming Lu, Dandan Huang, Yadi Li, Lin Zhu, Xiaojing Liu, Xin Jin, Songping Luo

Abstract

Despite increasing numbers of RCTs done in China, detailed information on the quality of Chinese RCTs is still missing. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RSA RCTs and to identify significant predictors of reporting quality. A literature review was conducted with the aim of identifying published RCTs on RSA conducted in China. In order to rate the report quality, we scored 1 for the item of CONSORT 2010 if it was reported and 0 if it was not stated or unclear. An overall quality score (OQS) with a range of 0-15 and a key methodological index score (MIS) with a range of 0-3 were calculated for each trial. A total of 98 relevant RCTs were included in the final analysis. The median OQS was 7, with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 12. The general level of OQS was not high, especially among 'sample size,' 'baseline data,' 'outcomes and estimation,' and 'ancillary analyses,' all of which had a positive rate of less than 10%. The median MIS was 1 with a minimum of 0 and maximum of 1. 'Allocation concealment,' 'blinding,' and 'intention-to-treat analysis' were mentioned in 1 (1%), 1 (1%) and 69 (70%) of the studies, respectively. In univariate analysis, funding was the only factor associated with an increased OQS. Specifically, the mean OQS increased by approximately 1.52 for manuscripts supported by funding (95% CI: 0.12 - 2.92; p = 0.03). With regard to the MIS, no association was found for any variable. RCTs of RSA conducted in China need improvement in order to meet the level of "reporting quality" required by the CONSORT statement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 32%
Other 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 55%
Social Sciences 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 April 2015.
All research outputs
#2,643,792
of 5,021,372 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,046
of 1,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,152
of 154,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#77
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,021,372 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,660 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 154,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.