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 |
Combined Protocol for Acute Malnutrition Study (ComPAS) in rural South Sudan and urban Kenya: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-018-2643-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeanette Bailey, Natasha Lelijveld, Bethany Marron, Pamela Onyoo, Lara S. Ho, Mark Manary, André Briend, Charles Opondo, Marko Kerac |
| Abstract |
Acute malnutrition is a continuum condition, but severe and moderate forms are treated separately, with different protocols and therapeutic products, managed by separate United Nations agencies. The Combined Protocol for Acute Malnutrition Study (ComPAS) aims to simplify and unify the treatment of uncomplicated severe and moderate acute malnutrition (SAM and MAM) for children 6-59 months into one protocol in order to improve the global coverage, quality, continuity of care and cost-effectiveness of acute malnutrition treatment in resource-constrained settings. This study is a multi-site, cluster randomized non-inferiority trial with 12 clusters in Kenya and 12 clusters in South Sudan. Participants are 3600 children aged 6-59 months with uncomplicated acute malnutrition. This study will evaluate the impact of a simplified and combined protocol for the treatment of SAM and MAM compared to the standard protocol, which is the national treatment protocol in each country. We will assess recovery rate as a primary outcome and coverage, defaulting, death, length of stay, average weekly weight gain and average weekly mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) gain as secondary outcomes. Recovery rate is defined across both treatment arms as MUAC ≥125 mm and no oedema for two consecutive visits. Per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be conducted. If the combined protocol is shown to be non-inferior to the standard protocol, updating guidelines to use the combined protocol would eliminate the need for separate products, resources and procedures for MAM treatment. This would likely be more cost-effective, increase availability of services, enable earlier case finding and treatment before deterioration of MAM into SAM, promote better continuity of care and improve community perceptions of the programme. ISRCTN, ISRCTN30393230 . Registered on 16 March 2017. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 4 | 40% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Kenya | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 30% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 153 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 27 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 13% |
| Unknown | 56 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Unknown | 59 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,673,738
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#578
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,353
of 343,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. 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 343,243 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.