↓ Skip to main content

The clinically-integrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
The clinically-integrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost
Published in
Trials, March 2009
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-10-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew J Vickers, Peter T Scardino

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials provide the best method of determining which of two comparable treatments is preferable. Unfortunately, contemporary randomized trials have become increasingly expensive, complex and burdened by regulation, so much so that many trials are of doubtful feasibility.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 58 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 24%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 11%
Professor 5 8%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Psychology 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 10 16%

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 01 August 2014.
All research outputs
#12,531,510
of 21,238,480 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#3,020
of 5,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,843
of 142,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,238,480 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 142,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them