Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29451556›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2017

Factors associated with online media attention to research: a cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments.

Romana Haneef, Philippe Ravaud, Gabriel Baron, Lina Ghosn, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Research integrity and peer review · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Romana HaneefINSERM, UMR 1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, University of Paris Descartes, Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France.
Philippe RavaudINSERM, UMR 1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, University of Paris Descartes, Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France.
Gabriel BaronCentre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France.
Lina Ghosn2Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France.
Isabelle BoutronINSERM, UMR 1153 Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS team, University of Paris Descartes, Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew metrics have been developed to assess the impact of research and provide an indication of online media attention and data dissemination. We aimed to describe online media attention of articles evaluating cancer treatments and identify the factors associated with high online media attention.

methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed on March 1, 2015 for articles published during the first 6 months of 2014 in oncology and medical journals with a diverse range of impact factors, from 3.9 to 54.4, and selected a sample of articles evaluating a cancer treatment regardless of study design. Altmetric Explorer was used to identify online media attention of selected articles. The primary outcome was media attention an article received online as measured by Altmetric score (i.e., number of mentions in online news outlets, science blogs and social media). Regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors associated with high media attention, and regression coefficients represent the logarithm of ratio of mean (RoM) values of Altmetric score per unit change in the covariate.

resultsAmong 792 articles, 218 (27.5%) received no online media attention (Altmetric score = 0). The median [Q1-Q3] Altmetric score was 2.0 [0.0-8.0], range 0.0-428.0. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with high Altmetric score were presence of a press release (RoM = 10.14, 95%CI [4.91-20.96]), open access to the article (RoM = 1.48, 95%CI [1.02-2.16]), and journal impact factor (RoM = 1.10, 95%CI [1.07-1.12]. As compared with observational studies, systematic reviews were not associated with high Altmetric score (RoM = 1.46, 95%CI [0.74-2.86];

conclusionsMost important factors associated with high online media attention were the presence of a press release and the journal impact factor. There was no evidence that study design with high level of evidence and type of abstract conclusion were associated with high online media attention.

Indexed as

Altmetric scoreCancer treatmentJournal impact factorMedia attentionOpen accessPress release

Identifiers

PMID29451556
PMCPMC5803628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.