↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2011
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
212 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000012.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Gunn E Vist, Antje Timmer, Regina Kunz, Elie A Akl, Holger Schünemann, Matthias Briel, Alain J Nordmann, Silvia Pregno, Andrew D Oxman

Abstract

Randomised trials use the play of chance to assign participants to comparison groups. The unpredictability of the process, if not subverted, should prevent systematic differences between comparison groups (selection bias). Differences due to chance will still occur and these are minimised by randomising a sufficiently large number of people.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
United States 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 284 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 24%
Researcher 39 13%
Student > Bachelor 35 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 11%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 65 22%
Unknown 34 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 122 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 12%
Psychology 17 6%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 55 19%

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 30 April 2021.
All research outputs
#654,464
of 18,864,431 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,534
of 11,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,303
of 129,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,864,431 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 11,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 129,406 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.