↓ Skip to main content

The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, November 2019
DOI 10.1186/s40814-019-0500-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Sarah Daisy Kosa, Daeria O. Lawson, Rosa Stalteri, Oluwatobi R. Olaiya, Ahlam Alotaibi, Lehana Thabane

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 9 20%
Psychology 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 17 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,282,112
of 23,170,347 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#476
of 1,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,008
of 363,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#20
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,170,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 363,803 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.