↓ Skip to main content

Estrategias de promoción del síndrome por déficit de testosterona: un caso paradigmático de invención de enfermedad (disease mongering)

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
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.
Title
Estrategias de promoción del síndrome por déficit de testosterona: un caso paradigmático de invención de enfermedad (disease mongering)
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2013.06.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enrique Gavilán, Laura Jiménez de Gracia, Juan Gérvas

Abstract

The so-called «testosterone deficiency syndrome» is a blend of nonspecific symptoms typical of the physiological process of aging. This syndrome has been the subject of intense promotional activity that has presented the phenomenon as highly prevalent and with a major public health impact. This strategy has been accompanied by the emergence of new and easy to administer testosterone devices into the pharmaceutical market and has generated significant sales for drug companies. The commercial promotion of testosterone deficiency syndrome and its remedies has exploited cultural stereotypes of aging and sexuality through awareness campaigns promoted by the laboratories involved and has been disseminated by media with the participation of numerous experts and with the support of scientific associations, representing a paradigmatic case of disease mongering. This example might be of use in the response to disease mongering activities from the clinical and public health fields.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 11 61%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unknown 12 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,149,214
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#16
of 52 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,897
of 237,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 52 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 237,345 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.