↓ Skip to main content

A landmark for popperian epidemiology: refutation of the randomised Aldactone evaluation study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978), November 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
A landmark for popperian epidemiology: refutation of the randomised Aldactone evaluation study
Published in
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978), November 2005
DOI 10.1136/jech.2004.031633
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Koch

Abstract

In 1999 a great multi-site clinical trial known as the randomised Aldactone evaluation study (RALES) showed that the use of spironolactone importantly reduced complications attributable to chronic heart failure without major negative side effects. Recently, RALES has been questioned by a large scale observational study in the Ontario population. In contrast with predictions, the complications and mortality increased dramatically because of hyperkalaemia, reaching dimensions that from a public health perspective are comparable to an epidemic. This review analyses both researches in the light of Karl Popper's science theory applying the modus tollens syllogism to the reality proposed by the main empirical enunciations that ensue from its epidemiological designs. RALES is deductively refuted because of the non-fulfillment of auxiliary assumptions that would act as reciprocal potential falsifiers in both studies, taking the logical form of a bi-conditional argument of the type: (a) P-then-Q and (b) Q-if-X(P), X(P) being a set of potential falsifiers of Q as part of the explicit falsity content of P. From this popperian model, implications for clinical research are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 45 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 23%
Student > Master 7 15%
Professor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 11 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,216,525
of 22,561,331 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978)
#593
of 4,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,882
of 63,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1978)
#6
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,561,331 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 63,495 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 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.