↓ 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 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
299 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 38 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 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
United States 3 1%
Denmark 3 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
New Zealand 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Singapore 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 270 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 62 21%
Student > Master 57 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Student > Postgraduate 23 8%
Other 21 7%
Other 76 25%
Unknown 31 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 9%
Social Sciences 20 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 6%
Other 75 25%
Unknown 44 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#786,481
of 21,326,488 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#149
of 5,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,592
of 189,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,326,488 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 5,429 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 97% 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 189,354 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 99% of its contemporaries.