↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000009.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Dianne Bryant, Lyndsay Somerville, Trevor Birminghem, Andrew D Oxman

Abstract

Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up-to-date physicians and treatments. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2005.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
United Kingdom 4 2%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 200 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 14%
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 12%
Other 12 6%
Other 48 23%
Unknown 26 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 110 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Psychology 9 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 38 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 April 2021.
All research outputs
#5,732,606
of 17,658,188 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,167
of 11,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,954
of 167,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,658,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,729 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 167,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.