↓ Skip to main content

Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2014
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-12-69
Pubmed ID
Authors

Céline Buffel du Vaure, Isabelle Boutron, Elodie Perrodeau, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract

Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians' confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 5%
France 1 5%
Unknown 18 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Master 3 15%
Professor 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Other 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 45%
Unspecified 4 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 10%

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 22 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,676,716
of 12,385,926 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,293
of 1,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,833
of 193,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#40
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,385,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,983 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 193,673 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.