↓ 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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
550 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
420 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 17 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 420 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 1%
Spain 4 <1%
United States 4 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 393 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 18%
Researcher 62 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 13%
Other 41 10%
Student > Bachelor 37 9%
Other 122 29%
Unknown 27 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 203 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 6%
Social Sciences 25 6%
Psychology 22 5%
Other 53 13%
Unknown 61 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 18 August 2020.
All research outputs
#354,833
of 15,873,122 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#829
of 11,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,736
of 114,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,873,122 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 11,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. 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 114,886 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 70 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 94% of its contemporaries.