↓ Skip to main content

Economics and industry do not mean ethical conduct in clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Economics and industry do not mean ethical conduct in clinical trials
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/2052-3211-6-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel Lexchin

Abstract

Clinical trials present an ethical dilemma for pharmaceutical companies. While companies may want to undertake and report these trials in an ethical manner, negative results can significantly affect product sales. There is accumulating evidence that company-financed trials are biased in favor of the product that the company makes. Ethical conduct in this article is defined as whether the trials are conducted in the best interests of the participants and/or reported in the best interests of patients. Nine examples of how clinical trials are violating multiple articles in the Declaration of Helsinki are discussed using concrete case reports from the literature. The recognition of ethical problems in company run trials is not something new, but to date no meaningful action has been taken to resolve this issue. What is necessary is to separate the financing of clinical trials from their conduct.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Master 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Librarian 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 18%
Social Sciences 2 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Other 3 27%
Unknown 1 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 December 2013.
All research outputs
#6,050,028
of 24,593,555 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#142
of 457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,805
of 318,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,593,555 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 318,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.