↓ Skip to main content

Patient enrollment and logistical problems top the list of difficulties in clinical research: a cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Patient enrollment and logistical problems top the list of difficulties in clinical research: a cross-sectional survey
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0151-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stéphane Cullati, Delphine S. Courvoisier, Angèle Gayet-Ageron, Guy Haller, Olivier Irion, Thomas Agoritsas, Sandrine Rudaz, Thomas V. Perneger

Abstract

Many medical research projects encounter difficulties. The objective of this study was to assess the self-reported frequency of difficulties encountered by medical researchers while conducting research and to identify factors associated with their occurrence. The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey in 2010 among principal investigators of 996 study protocols approved by the Research Ethics Committee in Geneva, Switzerland, between 2001 and 2005. The authors asked principal investigators to rate the level of difficulty (1: none, to 5: very great) encountered across the research process. 588 questionnaires were sent back (participation rate 59.0 %). 391 (66.5 %) studies were completed at the time of the survey. Investigators reported that the most frequent difficulties were related to patient enrollment (44.3 %), data collection (26.7 %), data analysis and interpretation (21.5 %), collaboration with caregivers (21.0 %), study design (20.4 %), publication in peer-reviewed journal (20.2 %), hiring of competent study personnel (20.2 %), and getting funding (19.2 %). On average, investigators reported 2.8 difficulties per project (SD 2.8, range 0 to 12). In multivariable analysis, the number of difficulties was higher for studies initiated by public sponsors (vs. private), single center studies (vs. multicenter), and studies about treatment, diagnosis or prognosis (i.e., clinical vs. other studies). Medical researchers reported substantial logistical difficulties in conducting clinical research.

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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 27%
Student > Master 6 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Engineering 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%

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 22 November 2016.
All research outputs
#9,802,649
of 15,984,388 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,054
of 1,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,948
of 265,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,984,388 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 265,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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