| Title |
Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 4. Managing conflicts of interests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1478-4505-4-16 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth A Boyd, Lisa A Bero |
| Abstract |
The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fourth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Peru | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Nepal | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 17% |
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 41% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 11 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,509,918
of 24,047,183 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#158
of 1,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,325
of 161,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,047,183 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 161,093 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 13 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 99% of its contemporaries.