| Title |
Retraction of COVID-19 Pharmacoepidemiology Research Could Have Been Avoided by Effective Use of Reporting Guidelines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, December 2020
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s288677 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric I Benchimol, David Moher, Vera Ehrenstein, Sinéad M Langan |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 13% |
| Canada | 3 | 9% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 14 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 47% |
| Scientists | 12 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 24% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 07 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,265,689
of 25,342,911 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#56
of 789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,966
of 524,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,342,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 524,960 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.