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
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Risk of bias in industry-funded oseltamivir trials: comparison of core reports versus full clinical study reports
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005253 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tom Jefferson, Mark A Jones, Peter Doshi, Chris B Del Mar, Rokuro Hama, Matthew J Thompson, Igho Onakpoya, Carl J Heneghan |
| Abstract |
The Cochrane risk of bias tool is a prominent instrument used to evaluate potential biases in clinical trials. In three updates of our Cochrane review on neuraminidase inhibitors, we assessed risk of bias on the same trials using different levels of detail: the trials in journal publications, in core reports, and in full clinical study reports. Here we analyse whether progressively greater amounts of information and detail in full clinical study reports (including trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, certificates of analyses, individual participant data listings and randomisation lists) affected our risk of bias assessments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 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 | 14 | 21% |
| Spain | 6 | 9% |
| United States | 5 | 7% |
| Canada | 4 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 3% |
| Chile | 2 | 3% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 28 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 43 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 19% |
| Scientists | 10 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 26% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 56% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. 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 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#592,472
of 25,517,918 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#974
of 25,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,981
of 264,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#17
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,517,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 264,856 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 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 92% of its contemporaries.