| Title |
Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000032.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katie Gillies, Anna Kearney, Ciara Keenan, Shaun Treweek, Jemma Hudson, Valerie C Brueton, Thomas Conway, Andrew Hunter, Louise Murphy, Peter J Carr, Greta Rait, Paul Manson, Magaly Aceves-Martins |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 78 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 Kingdom | 21 | 27% |
| Ireland | 9 | 12% |
| United States | 4 | 5% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Belgium | 2 | 3% |
| South Africa | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Israel | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 52 | 67% |
| Scientists | 19 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 313 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 311 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 11% |
| Researcher | 30 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 39 | 12% |
| Unknown | 135 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 9% |
| Psychology | 14 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 29 | 9% |
| Unknown | 149 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 20 November 2023.
All research outputs
#651,020
of 24,848,516 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,234
of 12,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,510
of 427,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,848,516 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 427,414 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.