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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0639-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Agnès Dechartres, Philippe Ravaud, Ignacio Atal, Carolina Riveros, Isabelle Boutron |
| Abstract |
To increase transparency in research, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required, in 2005, prospective registration of clinical trials as a condition to publication. However, many trials remain unregistered or retrospectively registered. We aimed to assess the association between trial prospective registration and treatment effect estimates. This is a meta-epidemiological study based on all Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014 with meta-analyses of a binary outcome including three or more randomised controlled trials published after 2006. We extracted trial general characteristics and results from the Cochrane reviews. For each trial, we searched for registration in the report's full text, contacted the corresponding author if not reported and searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in case of no response. We classified each trial as prospectively registered (i.e. registered before the start date); retrospectively registered, distinguishing trials registered before and after the primary completion date; and not registered. Treatment effect estimates of prospectively registered and other trials were compared by the ratio of odds ratio (ROR) (ROR <1 indicates larger effects in trials not prospectively registered). We identified 67 meta-analyses (322 trials). Overall, 225/322 trials (70 %) were registered, 74 (33 %) prospectively and 142 (63 %) retrospectively; 88 were registered before the primary completion date and 54 after. Unregistered or retrospectively registered trials tended to show larger treatment effect estimates than prospectively registered trials (combined ROR = 0.81, 95 % CI 0.65-1.02, based on 32 contributing meta-analyses). Trials unregistered or registered after the primary completion date tended to show larger treatment effect estimates than those registered before this date (combined ROR = 0.84, 95 % CI 0.71-1.01, based on 43 contributing meta-analyses). Lack of trial prospective registration may be associated with larger treatment effect estimates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 26% |
| France | 3 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 10% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 61% |
| Scientists | 7 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 22% |
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 36% |
| Psychology | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,722,086
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,202
of 3,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,002
of 355,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#17
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 355,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.