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 |
Developing a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-13-176 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer Marie Tetzlaff, David Moher, An-Wen Chan |
| Abstract |
Recent evidence has highlighted deficiencies in clinical trial protocols, having implications for many groups. Existing guidelines for randomized clinical trial (RCT) protocol content vary substantially and most do not describe systematic methodology for their development. As one of three prespecified steps for the systematic development of a guideline for trial protocol content, the objective of this study was to conduct a three-round Delphi consensus survey to develop and refine minimum content for RCT protocols. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 123 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 17% |
| Researcher | 19 | 15% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 9% |
| Psychology | 8 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 15% |
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 10 October 2012.
All research outputs
#18,317,537
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#4,725
of 5,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,243
of 171,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#43
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 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 5,825 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 171,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.