↓ Skip to main content

Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2015
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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Barnes, Isabelle Boutron, Bruno Giraudeau, Raphael Porcher, Douglas G Altman, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract

Incomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a 'split-manuscript' RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were masters and doctoral students in public health. They were asked to write, over a 4-hour period, the methods section of a manuscript based on a real RCT protocol, with a different protocol provided to each participant. Methods sections were divided into six different domains: 'trial design', 'randomization', 'blinding', 'participants', 'interventions', and 'outcomes'. Participants had to draft all six domains with access to the WAT for a random three of six domains. The random sequence was computer-generated and concealed. For each domain, the WAT comprised reminders of the corresponding CONSORT item(s), bullet points detailing all the key elements to be reported, and examples of good reporting. The control intervention consisted of no reminders. The primary outcome was the mean global score for completeness of reporting (scale 0-10) for all domains written with or without the WAT. Forty-one participants wrote 41 different manuscripts of RCT methods sections, corresponding to 246 domains (six for each of the 41 protocols). All domains were analyzed. For the primary outcome, the mean (SD) global score for completeness of reporting was higher with than without use of the WAT: 7.1 (1.2) versus 5.0 (1.6), with a mean (95 % CI) difference 2.1 (1.5-2.7; P <0.01). Completeness of reporting was significantly higher with the WAT for all domains except for blinding and outcomes. Use of the WAT could improve the completeness of manuscripts reporting the results of RCTs. Clinicaltrials.gov ( http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT02127567 , registration date first received April 29, 2014).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
France 1 2%
Unknown 46 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Researcher 8 16%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 13 27%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 41%
Psychology 8 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 5 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 20 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,520,593
of 14,382,261 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,112
of 2,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,874
of 242,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,382,261 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 242,345 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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