| Title |
Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000006.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sally Hopewell, Kirsty Loudon, Mike J Clarke, Andrew D Oxman, Kay Dickersin |
| Abstract |
The tendency for authors to submit, and of journals to accept, manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings has been termed publication bias. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 4 | 24% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 65% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 88% |
| Scientists | 2 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 510 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | <1% |
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| Spain | 4 | <1% |
| Chile | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 487 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 89 | 17% |
| Researcher | 69 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 67 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 8% |
| Other | 42 | 8% |
| Other | 141 | 28% |
| Unknown | 59 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 217 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 5% |
| Psychology | 22 | 4% |
| Other | 77 | 15% |
| Unknown | 100 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. 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 24 March 2022.
All research outputs
#415,782
of 24,144,324 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#745
of 12,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,250
of 177,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,144,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,845 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 177,777 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 98% of its contemporaries.