↓ Skip to main content

Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
503 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
385 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000006.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Hopewell, Kirsty Loudon, Mike J Clarke, Andrew D Oxman, Kay Dickersin

Abstract

The tendency for authors to submit, and of journals to accept, manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings has been termed publication bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 385 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 2%
United States 5 1%
Spain 4 1%
Canada 3 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 357 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 18%
Researcher 56 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 14%
Other 40 10%
Student > Bachelor 34 9%
Other 132 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 193 50%
Unspecified 49 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 6%
Psychology 22 6%
Other 70 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 15 February 2019.
All research outputs
#297,465
of 13,370,991 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#793
of 10,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,655
of 107,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,370,991 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 107,448 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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 91% of its contemporaries.