↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
587 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
445 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 445 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 1%
Spain 4 <1%
United States 4 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 420 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 82 18%
Researcher 64 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 13%
Other 40 9%
Student > Bachelor 39 9%
Other 128 29%
Unknown 36 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 203 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 7%
Social Sciences 27 6%
Psychology 22 5%
Other 57 13%
Unknown 72 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 29 October 2020.
All research outputs
#419,436
of 17,819,859 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#917
of 11,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,916
of 121,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,819,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,777 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. 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 121,919 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 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 95% of its contemporaries.