↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
587 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
417 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000030.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy Turner, Larissa Shamseer, Douglas G Altman, Laura Weeks, Jodi Peters, Thilo Kober, Sofia Dias, Kenneth F Schulz, Amy C Plint, David Moher

Abstract

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 417 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 402 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 61 15%
Student > Master 60 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 13%
Student > Bachelor 36 9%
Student > Postgraduate 27 6%
Other 112 27%
Unknown 66 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 167 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 6%
Psychology 25 6%
Social Sciences 18 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 4%
Other 67 16%
Unknown 96 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 05 July 2020.
All research outputs
#880,197
of 23,573,357 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,882
of 12,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,975
of 180,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,573,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 180,853 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.