↓ Skip to main content

Drug Firms, the Codification of Diagnostic Categories, and Bias in Clinical Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 739)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Drug Firms, the Codification of Diagnostic Categories, and Bias in Clinical Guidelines
Published in
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1111/jlme.12074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Cosgrove, Emily E. Wheeler

Abstract

The possibility that industry is exerting an undue influence on the culture of medicine has profound implications for the profession's public health mission. Policy analysts, investigative journalists, researchers, and clinicians have questioned whether academic-industry relationships have had a corrupting effect on evidence-based medicine. Psychiatry has been at the heart of this epistemic and ethical crisis in medicine. This article examines how commercial entities, such as pharmaceutical companies, influence psychiatric taxonomy and treatment guidelines. Using the conceptual framework of institutional corruption, we show that organized psychiatry's dependence on drug firms has led to a distortion of science. We describe the current dependency corruption and argue that transparency alone is not a solution. We conclude by taking the position that the corruption of the evidence base in diagnostic and practice guidelines has compromised the informed consent process, and we suggest strategies to address this problem.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 2 5%
Chile 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 31%
Psychology 9 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Arts and Humanities 3 7%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 3 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 11 October 2016.
All research outputs
#461,256
of 12,550,366 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#26
of 739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,773
of 191,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,550,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 191,662 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.