↓ Skip to main content

A Perspective on the Principles of Integrity in Infectious Disease Research

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Patient Safety, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 474)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
67 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
A Perspective on the Principles of Integrity in Infectious Disease Research
Published in
Journal of Patient Safety, March 2016
DOI 10.1097/pts.0000000000000265
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kavanagh, Kevin T., Tower, Stephen S., Saman, Daniel M.

Abstract

The medical literature is prone to overstating results, a condition not thoroughly recognized among policymakers. This article sets forth examples of potential problems with research integrity in the infectious disease literature. We describe articles that may be spun, categories lumped together in hopes of creating a significant effect (and sometimes an insignificant one), changes in metrics, and how trials may fail because of suboptimal interventions. When examined together, the examples show that the problems are widespread and illustrate the difficulty associated with interpreting medical research. The state of the current medical literature makes it of utmost importance that all sections of the manuscript are read, including associated letters to the editors and information on ClinicalTrials.gov before authors' recommendations are accepted.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 60%
Student > Postgraduate 1 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 80%
Social Sciences 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 06 July 2017.
All research outputs
#179,120
of 8,472,367 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Patient Safety
#18
of 474 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,933
of 282,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Patient Safety
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,472,367 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 474 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 282,655 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.