↓ Skip to main content

Financial competing interests were associated with favorable conclusions and greater author productivity in nonsystematic reviews of neuraminidase inhibitors

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge
14

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Financial competing interests were associated with favorable conclusions and greater author productivity in nonsystematic reviews of neuraminidase inhibitors
Published in
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, December 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.07.010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam G. Dunn, Xujuan Zhou, Joel Hudgins, Diana Arachi, Kenneth D. Mandl, Enrico Coiera, Florence T. Bourgeois

Abstract

To characterise the conclusions and production of non-systematic reviews about neuraminidase inhibitors relative to financial competing interests held by the authors. We searched for articles about neuraminidase inhibitors and influenza (January 2005 to April 2015), identifying non-systematic reviews and grading them according to the favourable/non-favourable presentation of evidence on safety and efficacy. We recorded financial competing interests disclosed in the reviews and from other articles written by their authors. We measured associations between competing interests, author productivity, and conclusions. Among 213 non-systematic reviews, 138 (65%) presented favourable conclusions. Financial competing interests were identified for 26% (137/532) of authors; 51% (108/213) of reviews were associated with a financial competing interest. Reviews produced exclusively by authors with financial competing interests (33%; 71/213) were more likely to present favourable conclusions than reviews with no competing interests (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.03-1.55). Authors with financial competing interests published more articles about neuraminidase inhibitors than their counterparts. Half of non-systematic reviews about neuraminidase inhibitors included an author with a financial competing interest. Reviews produced exclusively by these authors were more likely to present favourable conclusions, and authors with financial competing interests published a greater number of reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 31%
Researcher 2 15%
Librarian 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Social Sciences 2 15%
Psychology 1 8%
Decision Sciences 1 8%
Other 0 0%

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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,074,753
of 12,969,692 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#381
of 2,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,548
of 261,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#11
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,969,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 261,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.