↓ Skip to main content

Exhaustividad y tono crítico de las noticias en la prensa escrita que informan de una innovación médica

Overview of attention for article published in Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 774)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Exhaustividad y tono crítico de las noticias en la prensa escrita que informan de una innovación médica
Published in
Gaceta Sanitaria, March 2019
DOI 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.10.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maite Solans-Domènech, Marta Millaret, Núria Radó-Trilla, Johanna Caro-Mendivelso, Carme Carrion, Gaietà Permanyer-Miralda, Joan M.V. Pons

Abstract

To quantify how exhaustive and critical were stories reporting medical innovations published in print media and to analyze the characteristics that may be related. Content analysis of the newspapers stories related to the discovery, introduction or improvement of a medical innovation through a questionnaire with ten criteria that allows calculating an overall score of exhaustiveness. The critical view was also included. We analyzed 204 newspapers stories that on average obtained a comprehensiveness score of 4.5. Were optimistic 70% of the stories. The most valued criteria were: level of detail of the explanation of the innovation and the correct differentiation between facts and opinions. While the worst-valued criteria were: disclosure of financial conflicts of interest and the quantification of harms. The variables author, length of the story and classification of the innovation were related to both the comprehensiveness score and the critical view. The comprehensiveness score was also related to the pathology, number of sources of information and the critical tone of the story, while the critical view was also related to the newspapers diffusion and the relevance of the news. The analyzed stories presented inaccuracies, biases or an excess of optimism (either intentional or involuntary). Some aspects of the stories discussed in more detail would provide solutions to many of the identified shortcomings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 4 15%
Librarian 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Psychology 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 8 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#876,450
of 16,135,689 outputs
Outputs from Gaceta Sanitaria
#30
of 774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,853
of 412,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gaceta Sanitaria
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,135,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. 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 412,729 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 95% of its contemporaries.