| Title |
Rapid, easy, and cheap randomization: prospective evaluation in a study cohort
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-13-90 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melissa J Parker, Asmaa Manan, Mark Duffett |
| Abstract |
When planning a randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigators must select randomization and allocation procedures based upon a variety of factors. While third party randomization is cited as being among the most desirable randomization processes, many third party randomization procedures are neither feasible nor cost-effective for small RCTs, including pilot RCTs. In this study we present our experience with a third party randomization and allocation procedure that utilizes current technology to achieve randomization in a rapid, reliable, and cost-effective manner. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Mexico | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,566,759
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#15
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,930
of 178,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#14
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 30 of them.
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 178,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 54% of its contemporaries.