| Title |
Time to publication for results of clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000011.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sally Hopewell, Mike J Clarke, Lesley Stewart, Jayne Tierney |
| Abstract |
It has been suggested that a time-lag bias exists whereby research studies with striking results are more likely to be stopped earlier than originally planned, published quicker, or both. If time-lag bias exists, new interventions might be mistakenly assumed to be effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 130 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 21% |
| Unknown | 27 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 7% |
| Psychology | 9 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Unknown | 36 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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
#2,601,281
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,186
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,331
of 87,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 87,943 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.