↓ Skip to main content

Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Publication bias in animal research presented at the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2574-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Una Conradi, Ari R. Joffe

Abstract

To determine a direct measure of publication bias by determining subsequent full-paper publication (P) of studies reported in animal research abstracts presented at an international conference (A). We selected 100 random (using a random-number generator) A from the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference. Using a data collection form and study manual, we recorded methodology and result variables from A. We searched PubMed and EMBASE to June 2015, and DOAJ and Google Scholar to May 2017 to screen for subsequent P. Methodology and result variables were recorded from P to determine changes in reporting from A. Predictors of P were examined using Fisher's Exact Test. 62% (95% CI 52-71%) of studies described in A were subsequently P after a median 19 [IQR 9-33.3] months from conference presentation. Reporting of studies in A was of low quality: randomized 27% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), blinded 0%, sample-size calculation stated 0%, specifying the primary outcome 26%, numbers given with denominators 6%, and stating number of animals used 47%. Only being an orally presented (vs. poster presented) A (14/16 vs. 48/84, p = 0.025) predicted P. Reporting of studies in P was of poor quality: randomized 39% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), likely blinded 6%, primary outcome specified 5%, sample size calculation stated 0%, numbers given with denominators 34%, and number of animals used stated 56%. Changes in reporting from A to P occurred: from non-randomized to randomized 19%, from non-blinded to blinded 6%, from negative to positive outcomes 8%, from having to not having a stated primary outcome 16%, and from non-statistically to statistically significant findings 37%. Post-hoc, using publication data, P was predicted by having positive outcomes (published 62/62, unpublished 33/38; p = 0.003), or statistically significant results (published 58/62, unpublished 20/38; p < 0.001). Only 62% (95% CI 52-71%) of animal research A are subsequently P; this was predicted by oral presentation of the A, finally having positive outcomes, and finally having statistically significant results. Publication bias is prevalent in critical care animal research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 28%
Researcher 7 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 36%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 6 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 08 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,358,090
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#304
of 4,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,927
of 312,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#12
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 312,541 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 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 91% of its contemporaries.