↓ Skip to main content

Biotherapies in Solid Tumors: Are Negative Results Still of Low Priority for Publication?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
3 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
Biotherapies in Solid Tumors: Are Negative Results Still of Low Priority for Publication?
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00062
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessandro Ottaiano, Antonino Cassata, Monica Capozzi, Chiara De Divitiis, Alfonso De Stefano, Antonio Avallone

Abstract

In 2005, we performed the largest survey on clinical trials of biotherapies for all solid tumors and found indirect evidence of a publication bias: editors of medical journals were more prone to publish positive results independently from the quality of the studies. We collected data from 2003 to 2015 in 487 studies, and the publication bias previously described was not found in the years between 2010 and 2015: this could be related to changes and/or innovations in the guidelines and editorial policies of oncology journals occurred over the last years.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 33%
Unknown 2 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%
Unknown 2 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#15,925
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,055
of 351,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#91
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 351,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.