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 |
Conflict of Interest Disclosures for Clinical Practice Guidelines in the National Guideline Clearinghouse
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0047343 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan L. Norris, Haley K. Holmer, Lauren A. Ogden, Shelley S. Selph, Rongwei Fu |
| Abstract |
Conflict of interest (COI) is an important potential source of bias in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and high rates of COI among guideline authors have been reported in the past. Our objective was to report current rates of disclosure and specific author COI across a broad range of CPGs and to examine whether CPG characteristics were associated with the presence of disclosures and of conflicts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 41 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 33% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 44% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,684,520
of 23,063,209 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#21,658
of 196,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,602
of 184,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#426
of 4,905 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,063,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 184,358 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,905 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 91% of its contemporaries.