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 |
EAP viewpoint on unpublished data from paediatric clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Pediatrics, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00431-017-3005-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. Schrier, K. Illy, A. Valiulis, C. Wyder, T. Stiris |
| Abstract |
European children and paediatricians rely heavily on the fair, complete and timely publication of data obtained from paediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Selective publication and reporting of paediatric RCTs is common practice. Industry-sponsored trials are more likely to remain unpublished, and take longer to get published compared with trials sponsored by others. However, also academic sponsors contribute to inefficiencies in publishing clinical data. Publication bias violates the ethical obligation that investigators have towards study participants, leads to considerable inefficiencies in research and a waste of financial and human resources, and has the potential to distort evidence for treatment approaches. The European Academy of Paediatrics (EAP) therefore actively supports initiatives that increase the public dissemination of paediatric clinical trial data. The EAP will raise awareness about the guidelines for Good Publication Practice among European paediatricians and subspecialty societies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 11% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 39% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 2 | 20% |
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 20% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,945,887
of 25,390,970 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#431
of 4,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,977
of 320,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#7
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,970 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 320,311 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.