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 |
Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-020-01318-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carla Benea, Kimberly A. Turner, Michelle Roseman, Lisa A. Bero, Joel Lexchin, Erick H. Turner, Brett D. Thombs |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 22% |
| Chile | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Sweden | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |
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 20 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,300,630
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#389
of 2,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,024
of 375,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#13
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 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 2,122 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 375,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.