| 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
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 212 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 28 | 13% |
| Chile | 27 | 13% |
| Spain | 12 | 6% |
| United States | 11 | 5% |
| France | 8 | 4% |
| Colombia | 8 | 4% |
| Canada | 4 | 2% |
| Australia | 4 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 29 | 14% |
| Unknown | 78 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 144 | 68% |
| Scientists | 34 | 16% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 29 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 42 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 51 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 140. 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
#300,494
of 25,712,965 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#505
of 13,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,831
of 358,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,712,965 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 13,134 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 96% 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 358,639 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 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.