↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
9 X users
facebook
14 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
174 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: A Systematic Review
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan L. Norris, Haley K. Holmer, Lauren A. Ogden, Brittany U. Burda

Abstract

There is an emerging literature on the existence and effect of industry relationships on physician and researcher behavior. Much less is known, however, about the effects of these relationships and other conflicts of interest (COI) on clinical practice guideline (CPG) development and recommendations. We performed a systematic review of the prevalence of COI and its effect on CPG recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
United States 3 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 136 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 14%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 9%
Other 34 23%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 42%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 33 23%