| Title |
A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, June 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6882-5-12 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timothy Caulfield, Suzanne DeBow |
| Abstract |
Growing popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the public sector is reflected in the scientific community by an increased number of research articles assessing its therapeutic effects. Some suggest that publication biases occur in mainstream medicine, and may also occur in CAM. Homeopathy is one of the most widespread and most controversial forms of CAM. The purpose of this study was to compare the representation of homeopathic clinical trials published in traditional science and CAM journals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 States | 2 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Tunisia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 6% |
| Nigeria | 4 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 58 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 12% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 26% |
| Unknown | 8 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,702,371
of 24,471,305 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#288
of 3,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,425
of 60,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,471,305 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 3,840 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 60,482 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.