| Title |
Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Medical Association Journal, February 2004
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohit Bhandari, Jason W Busse, Dianne Jackowski, Victor M Montori, Holger Schünemann, Sheila Sprague, Derek Mears, Emil H Schemitsch, Dianne Heels-Ansdell, P J Devereaux |
| Abstract |
Conflicting reports exist in the medical literature regarding the association between industry funding and published research findings. In this study, we examine the association between industry funding and the statistical significance of results in recently published medical and surgical trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 States | 4 | 33% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| Canada | 4 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 153 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 12% |
| Other | 16 | 9% |
| Professor | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 9% |
| Other | 53 | 31% |
| Unknown | 17 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 87 | 51% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 8% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 25 | 15% |
| Unknown | 30 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 11 May 2023.
All research outputs
#763,165
of 23,738,567 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1,178
of 8,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#683
of 55,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,738,567 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 55,685 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 33 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 99% of its contemporaries.