| Title |
Update on the General Practice Optimising Structured Monitoring to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes (GP-OSMOTIC) trial: statistical analysis plan for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-018-3126-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharmala Thuraisingam, Patty Chondros, Max Catchpool, Kim Dalziel, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Jane Speight, Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott, Ralph Audehm, Jason Chiang, Irene Blackberry, David O’Neal, Kamlesh Khunti, James Best, John Furler |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Librarian | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,526,767
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#366
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,331
of 450,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#8
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 450,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.