↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
peer_reviews
2 peer review sites

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0042812
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wynanda A. van Enst, Rob J. P. M. Scholten, Lotty Hooft

Abstract

Publication and selective outcome reporting bias are a threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Extensive searching for additional trials in prospective trial registers could reduce this problem. We have evaluated how authors of Cochrane systematic reviews currently make use of trial registers as an additional source for the identification of potentially eligible trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Librarian 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 12 34%