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 |
Underreporting of conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: cross sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julie Bolette Brix Bindslev, Jeppe Schroll, Peter C Gøtzsche, Andreas Lundh |
| Abstract |
Conflicts of interest affect recommendations in clinical guidelines and disclosure of such conflicts is important. However, not all conflicts of interest are disclosed. Using a public available disclosure list we determined the prevalence and underreporting of conflicts of interest among authors of clinical guidelines on drug treatments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 Kingdom | 2 | 14% |
| Denmark | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 7% |
| Chile | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 79% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 13 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 40% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,957,227
of 23,414,653 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#199
of 1,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,776
of 194,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,414,653 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 194,271 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 91% 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 4 of them.