↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of two data collection processes in clinical studies: electronic and paper case report forms

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Comparison of two data collection processes in clinical studies: electronic and paper case report forms
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anaïs Le Jeannic, Céline Quelen, Corinne Alberti, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski

Abstract

Electronic Case Report Forms (eCRFs) are increasingly chosen by investigators and sponsors of clinical research instead of the traditional pen-and-paper data collection (pCRFs). Previous studies suggested that eCRFs avoided mistakes, shortened the duration of clinical studies and reduced data collection costs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Russia 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 82 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Researcher 12 14%
Other 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 31%
Computer Science 8 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 12 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,370,792
of 11,344,222 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#276
of 959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,610
of 201,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#9
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,344,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 959 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 201,636 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 71% of its contemporaries.