↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Randomized controlled trials – a matter of design

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
1042 Mendeley
Title
Randomized controlled trials – a matter of design
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s101938
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Markus Spieth, Anne Sophie Kubasch, Ana Isabel Penzlin, Ben Min-Woo Illigens, Kristian Barlinn, Timo Siepmann

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the hallmark of evidence-based medicine and form the basis for translating research data into clinical practice. This review summarizes commonly applied designs and quality indicators of RCTs to provide guidance in interpreting and critically evaluating clinical research data. It further reflects on the principle of equipoise and its practical applicability to clinical science with an emphasis on critical care and neurological research. We performed a review of educational material, review articles, methodological studies, and published clinical trials using the databases MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most relevant recommendations regarding design, conduction, and reporting of RCTs may include the following: 1) clinically relevant end points should be defined a priori, and an unbiased analysis and report of the study results should be warranted, 2) both significant and nonsignificant results should be objectively reported and published, 3) structured study design and performance as indicated in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement should be employed as well as registration in a public trial database, 4) potential conflicts of interest and funding sources should be disclaimed in study report or publication, and 5) in the comparison of experimental treatment with standard care, preplanned interim analyses during an ongoing RCT can aid in maintaining clinical equipoise by assessing benefit, harm, or futility, thus allowing decision on continuation or termination of the trial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,042 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 1041 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 219 21%
Student > Bachelor 208 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 8%
Student > Postgraduate 54 5%
Researcher 46 4%
Other 118 11%
Unknown 315 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 238 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 187 18%
Psychology 50 5%
Social Sciences 40 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 3%
Other 160 15%
Unknown 336 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 25 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,525,203
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#198
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,397
of 353,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#10
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 353,662 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.