| Title |
The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Medical Journal, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmj.g7015 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Petroc Sumner, Solveiga Vivian-Griffiths, Jacky Boivin, Andy Williams, Christos A Venetis, Aimée Davies, Jack Ogden, Leanne Whelan, Bethan Hughes, Bethan Dalton, Fred Boy, Christopher D Chambers |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,593 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 260 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 224 | 14% |
| Canada | 84 | 5% |
| Australia | 69 | 4% |
| Germany | 34 | 2% |
| Japan | 31 | 2% |
| France | 30 | 2% |
| Spain | 29 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 21 | 1% |
| Other | 170 | 11% |
| Unknown | 641 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 974 | 61% |
| Scientists | 385 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 127 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 106 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 386 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 1% |
| Unknown | 363 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 64 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 60 | 16% |
| Researcher | 51 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 12% |
| Other | 28 | 7% |
| Other | 78 | 20% |
| Unknown | 58 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 54 | 14% |
| Psychology | 38 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 37 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 100 | 26% |
| Unknown | 70 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1703. 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 01 April 2024.
All research outputs
#6,336
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#167
of 65,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35
of 370,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#5
of 908 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 65,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 370,428 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 908 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 99% of its contemporaries.