You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Funding source and the quality of reports of chronic wounds trials: 2004 to 2011
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-15-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert Hodgson, Richard Allen, Ellen Broderick, J Martin Bland, Jo C Dumville, Rebecca Ashby, Sally Bell-Syer, Ruth Foxlee, Jill Hall, Karen Lamb, Mary Madden, Susan O’Meara, Nikki Stubbs, Nicky Cullum |
| Abstract |
Critical commentaries suggest that wound care randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often poorly reported with many methodological flaws. Furthermore, interventions in chronic wounds, rather than being drugs, are often medical devices for which there are no requirements for RCTs to bring products to market. RCTs in wounds trials therefore potentially represent a form of marketing. This study presents a methodological overview of chronic wound trials published between 2004 and 2011 and investigates the influence of industry funding on methodological quality. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 40% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |