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 |
Do randomized clinical trials with inadequate blinding report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frederik Feys, Geertruida E Bekkering, Kavita Singh, Dirk Devroey |
| Abstract |
Studies suggest that expectations powerfully shape clinical outcomes. For subjective outcomes in adequately blinded trials, health improvements are substantial and largely explained by non-specific factors.The objective of this study was to investigate if unblinding in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is associated with enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups. For these effects, a secondary objective was to explore potential moderating factors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,446,073
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#439
of 2,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,832
of 225,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 225,778 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.