| Title |
The Quantity and Quality of Scientific Graphs in Pharmaceutical Advertisements
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20703.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richelle J. Cooper, David L. Schriger, Roger C. Wallace, Vladislav J. Mikulich, Michael S. Wilkes |
| Abstract |
We characterized the quantity and quality of graphs in all pharmaceutical advertisements, in the 10 U.S. medical journals. Four hundred eighty-four unique advertisements (of 3,185 total advertisements) contained 836 glossy and 455 small-print pages. Forty-nine percent of glossy page area was nonscientific figures/images, 0.4% tables, and 1.6% scientific graphs (74 graphs in 64 advertisements). All 74 graphs were univariate displays, 4% were distributions, and 4% contained confidence intervals for summary measures. Extraneous decoration (66%) and redundancy (46%) were common. Fifty-eight percent of graphs presented an outcome relevant to the drug's indication. Numeric distortion, specifically prohibited by FDA regulations, occurred in 36% of graphs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Professor | 4 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 28% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 36% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 10 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,087,365
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,582
of 8,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,437
of 54,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 54,829 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.