↓ Skip to main content

Managing clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Managing clinical trials
Published in
Trials, July 2010
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-11-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Farrell, Sara Kenyon, Haleema Shakur

Abstract

Managing clinical trials, of whatever size and complexity, requires efficient trial management. Trials fail because tried and tested systems handed down through apprenticeships have not been documented, evaluated or published to guide new trialists starting out in this important field. For the past three decades, trialists have invented and reinvented the trial management wheel. We suggest that to improve the successful, timely delivery of important clinical trials for patient benefit, it is time to produce standard trial management guidelines and develop robust methods of evaluation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
Germany 3 1%
Denmark 3 1%
United States 3 1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Singapore 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Other 7 3%
Unknown 225 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 59 23%
Student > Master 52 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Student > Bachelor 18 7%
Other 64 25%
Unknown 15 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 10%
Social Sciences 18 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 5%
Other 64 25%
Unknown 24 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 12 December 2020.
All research outputs
#867,552
of 16,587,222 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#233
of 4,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,123
of 174,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,587,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 174,316 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them