↓ Skip to main content

How effective are common medications: a perspective based on meta-analyses of major drugs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2015
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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
118 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
How effective are common medications: a perspective based on meta-analyses of major drugs
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0494-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Leucht, Bartosz Helfer, Gerald Gartlehner, John M. Davis

Abstract

The vastness of clinical data and the progressing specialization of medical knowledge may lead to misinterpretation of medication efficacy. To show a realistic perspective on drug efficacy we present meta-analyses on some of the most commonly used pharmacological interventions. For each pharmacological intervention we present statistical indexes (absolute risk or response difference, percentage response ratio, mean difference, standardized mean difference) that are often used to represent efficacy. We found that some of the medications have relatively low effect sizes with only 11 out of 17 of them showing a minimal clinically important difference. Efficacy was often established based on surrogate outcomes and not the more relevant patient-oriented outcomes. As the interpretation of the efficacy of medication is complex, more training for physicians might be needed to get a more realistic view of drug efficacy. That could help prevent harmful overtreatment and reinforce an evidence-based, but personalized medicine.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 118 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Unspecified 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 6 9%
Other 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 31%
Unspecified 15 22%
Psychology 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 15 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 02 October 2019.
All research outputs
#228,467
of 13,630,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#202
of 2,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,298
of 248,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,630,308 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 248,045 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them