↓ Skip to main content

Why Most Biomedical Findings Echoed by Newspapers Turn Out to be False: The Case of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2012
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
329 X users
facebook
30 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Why Most Biomedical Findings Echoed by Newspapers Turn Out to be False: The Case of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0044275
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Gonon, Jan-Pieter Konsman, David Cohen, Thomas Boraud

Abstract

Because positive biomedical observations are more often published than those reporting no effect, initial observations are often refuted or attenuated by subsequent studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 329 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 4%
Germany 3 2%
France 3 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 162 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 14%
Student > Master 20 11%
Other 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 44 24%
Unknown 20 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 15%
Social Sciences 20 11%
Psychology 20 11%
Computer Science 13 7%
Other 37 20%
Unknown 28 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 312. 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 10 February 2020.
All research outputs
#112,040
of 25,882,826 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#1,757
of 225,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#475
of 188,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#15
of 4,254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,882,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 188,271 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,254 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 99% of its contemporaries.