| Title |
Characteristics of physicians receiving large payments from pharmaceutical companies and the accuracy of their disclosures in publications: an observational study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-13-24 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan L Norris, Haley K Holmer, Lauren A Ogden, Brittany U Burda, Rongwei Fu |
| Abstract |
Financial relationships between physicians and industry are extensive and public reporting of industry payments to physicians is now occurring. Our objectives were to describe physician recipients of large total payments from these seven companies, and to examine discrepancies between these payments and conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in authors' concurrent publications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 | 5 | 22% |
| Spain | 4 | 17% |
| Chile | 4 | 17% |
| Ecuador | 2 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 25% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 39% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 23 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,245,868
of 25,018,122 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#89
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,111
of 179,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,018,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 179,103 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.