| Title |
A clinical trial gone awry: the Chocolate Happiness Undergoing More Pleasantness (CHUMP) study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Medical Association Journal, December 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1503/cmaj.071161 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kevin Chan |
| Abstract |
The randomized controlled trial is the "gold standard" for evaluating the benefits and harms of interventions. The Chocolate Happiness Undergoing More Pleasantness (CHUMP) study was designed to compare the effects of dark chocolate, milk chocolate and normal chocolate consumption on happiness. Although the intention-to-treat analysis showed that participants who received either dark or milk chocolate were happier than those who received no additional chocolate, the actual-consumption analysis showed that there were no differences between any of the groups. The reason for this result is that many participants switched groups mid-study because of their personal chocolate preferences. Although the CHUMP study was pleasurable, it demonstrated the difficulties associated with performing a truly blinded clinical trial. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 5 | 56% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 27% |
| Unknown | 5 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 29% |
| Unknown | 6 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 28 October 2022.
All research outputs
#793,717
of 24,701,594 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1,216
of 9,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,054
of 165,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#4
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,701,594 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 9,253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 165,506 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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 95% of its contemporaries.