↓ Skip to main content

The Role and Impact of Research Agendas on the Comparative-Effectiveness Research Among Antihyperlipidemics

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
The Role and Impact of Research Agendas on the Comparative-Effectiveness Research Among Antihyperlipidemics
Published in
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, February 2012
DOI 10.1038/clpt.2011.279
Pubmed ID
Authors

A G Dunn, F T Bourgeois, S Murthy, K D Mandl, R O Day, E Coiera

Abstract

Although it is well established that funding source influences the publication of clinical trials, relatively little is known about how funding influences trial design. We examined a public trial registry to determine how funding source shapes trial design among trials involving antihyperlipidemics. We used an automated process to identify and analyze 809 trials from a set of 72,564. Three networks representing industry-, collaboratively, and non-industry-funded trials were constructed. Each network comprised 18 drugs as nodes connected according to the number of comparisons made between them. The results indicated that industry-funded trials were more likely to compare across drugs and examine dyslipidemia as a condition, and less likely to register safety outcomes. The source of funding for clinical trials had a measurable effect on trial design, which helps quantify differences in research agendas. Improved monitoring of current clinical trials may be used to more closely align research agendas to clinical needs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 8%
Australia 1 4%
Unknown 22 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 24%
Student > Master 4 16%
Librarian 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 7 28%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 40%
Chemical Engineering 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 3 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 October 2014.
All research outputs
#7,250,817
of 12,857,464 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#2,100
of 2,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,591
of 118,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#28
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,857,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 118,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.