↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
51 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
396 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000032.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie C Brueton, Jayne Tierney, Sally Stenning, Seeromanie Harding, Sarah Meredith, Irwin Nazareth, Greta Rait

Abstract

Loss to follow-up from randomised trials can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to reduce loss to follow-up and improve retention but few have been formally evaluated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 396 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 389 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 81 20%
Researcher 65 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 12%
Student > Bachelor 42 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 6%
Other 66 17%
Unknown 72 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 16%
Psychology 41 10%
Social Sciences 27 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 3%
Other 38 10%
Unknown 93 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 18 December 2020.
All research outputs
#598,975
of 19,787,208 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,333
of 11,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,947
of 292,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,787,208 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 11,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 292,232 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 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.