The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000031.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kerry Dwan, Douglas G Altman, Lynne Cresswell, Michaela Blundell, Carrol L Gamble, Paula R Williamson |
| Abstract |
Publication of complete trial results is essential if people are to be able to make well-informed decisions about health care. Selective reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a common problem. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 33% |
| Researcher | 1 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 22% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 22 March 2021.
All research outputs
#949,583
of 26,552,644 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,713
of 13,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,286
of 199,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,552,644 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 13,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. 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 199,103 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 117 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 92% of its contemporaries.