↓ Skip to main content

Strengthening the ethical assessment of placebo-controlled surgical trials: three proposals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, October 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Strengthening the ethical assessment of placebo-controlled surgical trials: three proposals
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-15-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy Rogers, Katrina Hutchison, Zoë C Skea, Marion K Campbell

Abstract

Placebo-controlled surgical trials can provide important information about the efficacy of surgical interventions. However, they are ethically contentious as placebo surgery entails the risk of harms to recipients, such as pain, scarring or anaesthetic misadventure. This has led to claims that placebo-controlled surgical trials are inherently unethical. On the other hand, without placebo-controlled surgical trials, it may be impossible to know whether an apparent benefit from surgery is due to the intervention itself or to the placebo effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Psychology 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 12 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,868,410
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#180
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,044
of 262,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 262,976 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.