↓ Skip to main content

“Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
“Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-371
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne Lockyer, Rob Hodgson, Jo C Dumville, Nicky Cullum

Abstract

Spin in the reporting of randomized controlled trials, where authors report research in a way that potentially misrepresents results and mislead readers, has been demonstrated in the broader medical literature. We investigated spin in wound care trials with (a) no statistically significant result for the primary outcome and (b) no clearly specified primary outcome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
France 1 3%
Malaysia 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 26 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Other 5 16%
Student > Master 4 13%
Professor 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Other 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 50%
Unspecified 5 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,270,445
of 12,547,386 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#525
of 3,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,614
of 178,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#9
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,547,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 178,982 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.