↓ Skip to main content

Are non-constant rates and non-proportional treatment effects accounted for in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials? A review of current practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Are non-constant rates and non-proportional treatment effects accounted for in the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials? A review of current practice
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12874-019-0749-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim Jachno, Stephane Heritier, Rory Wolfe

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 38%
Mathematics 2 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#18,681,024
of 23,146,350 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,761
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,606
of 351,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#45
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,146,350 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 351,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.