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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Obesity, the Endocannabinoid System, and Bias Arising from Pharmaceutical Sponsorship
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0005092 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John M. McPartland |
| Abstract |
Previous research has shown that academic physicians conflicted by funding from the pharmaceutical industry have corrupted evidence based medicine and helped enlarge the market for drugs. Physicians made pharmaceutical-friendly statements, engaged in disease mongering, and signed biased review articles ghost-authored by corporate employees. This paper tested the hypothesis that bias affects review articles regarding rimonabant, an anti-obesity drug that blocks the central cannabinoid receptor. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 67% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 18% |
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 39% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,140,950
of 23,575,882 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#26,923
of 201,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,763
of 95,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#89
of 501 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,575,882 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 201,789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 95,470 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 501 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.