↓ Skip to main content

Key Opinion Leaders and the Corruption of Medical Knowledge: What the Sunshine Act Will and Won’t Cast Light on

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Key Opinion Leaders and the Corruption of Medical Knowledge: What the Sunshine Act Will and Won’t Cast Light on
Published in
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1111/jlme.12073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sergio Sismondo

Abstract

The pharmaceutical industry, in its marketing efforts, often turns to "key opinion leaders" or "KOLs" to disseminate scientific information. Drawing on the author's fieldwork, this article documents and examines the use of KOLs in pharmaceutical companies' marketing efforts. Partly due to the use of KOLs, a small number of companies with well-defined and narrow interests have inordinate influence over how medical knowledge is produced, circulated, and consumed. The issue here, as in many other cases of institutional corruption, is that a few actors have accumulated the power to shape the information on which many others base their decisions. Efforts to address this corruption should focus on correcting large imbalances in the current political economy of medical knowledge. A sequestration of pharmaceutical research and development on one hand from pharmaceutical marketing on the other, though difficult to achieve, would address this and many other problems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 14%
Other 5 10%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 30%
Social Sciences 8 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 7 14%

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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#866,784
of 16,750,089 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#56
of 979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,032
of 173,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,750,089 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 979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 173,800 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them