↓ Skip to main content

Establishing a Canadian national clinical trials network for kidney disease: proceedings of a planning workshop

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Establishing a Canadian national clinical trials network for kidney disease: proceedings of a planning workshop
Published in
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40697-015-0080-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio Rigatto, Michael Walsh, Nadia Zalunardo, Catherine M Clase, Braden J Manns, François Madore, Susan M Samuel, Catherine J Morgan, Wim Wolfs, Rita S. Suri

Abstract

Knowledge generation through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is critical to advance the medical evidence base, inform decision-making, and improve care and outcomes. Unfortunately, nephrology has typically lagged behind other medical specialties in this regard. The establishment of formal clinical trial networks can facilitate the successful conduct of RCTs and has significantly increased the number of RCTs performed worldwide in other medical specialties. No such formal network of nephrology trialists exists in Canada. On April 24, 2014, the Canadian Kidney Knowledge Translation and Generation Network (CANN-NET) Clinical Trials Committee held a stakeholder engagement meeting to address this gap and improve the nephrology clinical trial landscape in Canada. The meeting was held in Vancouver in association with the 2014 Canadian Society of Nephrology Annual General Meeting and was co-sponsored by the Kidney Foundation of Canada and CANN-NET. Attendees included nephrologists from university- and non-university-affiliated nephrology practices, administrators, and representatives from the Kidney Foundation of Canada. Through structured presentations and facilitated group discussions, the group explored the extent to which nephrology trials are currently happening in Canada, barriers to leading or participating in larger investigator-initiated trials, and strategies to improve clinical trial output in nephrology in Canada. The themes and action items arising from this meeting are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 37%
Student > Master 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 21%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,518,326
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#434
of 620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,980
of 392,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 392,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.