Report for: Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials

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	21491415
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.

View on publisher site Alert me about new mentions

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.

Geographical breakdown

Country	Count	As %
Japan	3	43%
United Kingdom	2	29%
Australia	1	14%
Unknown	1	14%

Demographic breakdown

Type	Count	As %
Members of the public	7	100%

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 336 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%
Ireland	1	<1%
Canada	1	<1%
Sweden	1	<1%
Peru	1	<1%
New Zealand	1	<1%
Unknown	325	97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status	Count	As %
Student > Master	70	21%
Student > Bachelor	45	13%
Researcher	40	12%
Student > Ph. D. Student	34	10%
Other	20	6%
Other	77	23%
Unknown	50	15%

Readers by discipline	Count	As %
Medicine and Dentistry	129	38%
Nursing and Health Professions	41	12%
Psychology	17	5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences	11	3%
Social Sciences	11	3%
Other	55	16%
Unknown	72	21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 November 2021.

All research outputs

#990,842

of 23,758,334 outputs

Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews

#2,145

of 12,756 outputs

Outputs of similar age

#3,760

of 111,135 outputs

Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews

of 99 outputs

Altmetric has tracked 23,758,334 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.

So far Altmetric has tracked 12,756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 111,135 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 99 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.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials

About this Attention Score

Mentioned by

Citations

Readers on

Twitter Demographics

Geographical breakdown

Demographic breakdown

Mendeley readers

Geographical breakdown

Demographic breakdown

Attention Score in Context