↓ Skip to main content

The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
Title
The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, November 2019
DOI 10.1186/s40814-019-0500-z
Authors

Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Sarah Daisy Kosa, Daeria O. Lawson, Rosa Stalteri, Oluwatobi R. Olaiya, Ahlam Alotaibi, Lehana Thabane

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 13 November 2019.
All research outputs
#3,525,282
of 13,888,024 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#183
of 422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,405
of 229,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#48
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,888,024 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 229,316 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.