↓ Skip to main content

Should we reconsider the routine use of placebo controls in clinical research?

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Should we reconsider the routine use of placebo controls in clinical research?
Published in
Trials, April 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-13-44
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew L Avins, Daniel C Cherkin, Karen J Sherman, Harley Goldberg, Alice Pressman

Abstract

Modern clinical-research practice favors placebo controls over usual-care controls whenever a credible placebo exists. An unrecognized consequence of this preference is that clinicians are more limited in their ability to provide the benefits of the non-specific healing effects of placebos in clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Professor 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Other 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 51%
Unspecified 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 4 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 June 2012.
All research outputs
#6,413,416
of 12,547,386 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,549
of 3,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,387
of 118,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,547,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 118,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 66% of its contemporaries.