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 |
Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: Differences in methodological quality and conclusions
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, September 2008
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-8-60 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anders W Jørgensen, Katja L Maric, Britta Tendal, Annesofie Faurschou, Peter C Gøtzsche |
Abstract |
Studies have shown that industry-sponsored meta-analyses of drugs lack scientific rigour and have biased conclusions. However, these studies have been restricted to certain medical specialities. We compared all industry-supported meta-analyses of drug-drug comparisons with those without industry support. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 1 | 2% |
France | 1 | 2% |
Peru | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 53 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 9 | 16% |
Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
Other | 6 | 11% |
Other | 16 | 29% |
Unknown | 5 | 9% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 55% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
Psychology | 3 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
Other | 7 | 13% |
Unknown | 8 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 28 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,994,961
of 25,253,876 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#450
of 2,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,249
of 96,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,253,876 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,255 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 well, scoring higher than 79% 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 96,589 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them