The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 174 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000047.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Camilla Hansen, Andreas Lundh, Kristine Rasmussen, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 17 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 4% |
| Spain | 7 | 4% |
| Colombia | 5 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 1% |
| France | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 2 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 118 | 68% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 123 | 71% |
| Scientists | 26 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 21 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 121 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 43 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 11% |
| Psychology | 6 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 54 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 120. 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 19 June 2023.
All research outputs
#368,105
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#592
of 13,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,127
of 361,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 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 13,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. 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 361,114 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 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.