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 |
Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-3-122 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan R Forsyth, Donna H Odierna, David Krauth, Lisa A Bero |
| Abstract |
Strong opinions for or against the use of systematic reviews to inform policymaking have been published in the medical literature. The purpose of this paper was to examine whether funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest were associated with whether an opinion article was supportive or critical of the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We examined the nature of the arguments within each article, the types of disclosures present, and whether these articles are being cited in the academic literature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 21% |
| Canada | 2 | 7% |
| Finland | 2 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 61% |
| Scientists | 8 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 61 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 22% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,150,744
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#155
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,528
of 372,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#4
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 372,145 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.