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 |
Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clément Lazarus, Romana Haneef, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron |
| Abstract |
Spin represents specific reporting strategies, either intentional or unintentional, to convince the reader that the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. The objectives of this study were to 1) develop a classification of spin specific to non-randomized studies assessing an intervention and 2) estimate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of reports of such studies. In a first step, we developed a specific classification of spin for non-randomized studies by a literature review and pilot study. In a second step, 2 researchers trained in the field of methodology evaluated the prevalence of spin in the abstract of all non-randomized studies assessing an intervention published in the BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. All disagreements were resolved by consensus. We also determined whether the level of spin in abstract conclusions was high (spin reported without uncertainty or recommendations for further trials), moderate (spin reported with some uncertainty or recommendations for further trials) or low (spin reported with uncertainty and recommendations for further trials). Among the 128 assessed articles assessed, 107 (84 %) had at least one example of spin in their abstract. The most prevalent strategy of spin was the use of causal language, identified in 68 (53 %) abstracts. Other frequent strategies were linguistic spin, inadequate implications for clinical practice, and lack of focus on harm, identified in 33 (26 %), 25 (20 %), and 34 (27 %) abstracts respectively. Abstract conclusions of 61 (48 %) articles featured a high level of spin. Abstract of reports of non-randomized studies assessing an intervention frequently includes spin. Efforts to reduce the prevalence of spin in abstract for such studies are needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 11% |
| France | 2 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Senegal | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 68% |
| Scientists | 4 | 21% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 December 2022.
All research outputs
#983,152
of 25,107,281 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#92
of 2,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,317
of 285,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,107,281 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 285,397 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.