| Title |
Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.mr000040.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard, Lisa Bero, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Anders W Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Mary Le, Andreas Lundh |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 17 | 12% |
| United States | 8 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 7 | 5% |
| Denmark | 3 | 2% |
| Chile | 3 | 2% |
| Belgium | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Japan | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 75 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 106 | 76% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 19 | 14% |
| Scientists | 12 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 13 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 13 | 16% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 31 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. 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 15 May 2023.
All research outputs
#485,346
of 24,489,051 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#873
of 12,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,847
of 517,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,489,051 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 12,927 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 517,998 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 181 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 92% of its contemporaries.