| Title |
From accuracy to patient outcome and cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests and biomarkers: an exemplary modelling study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-12 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hendrik Koffijberg, Bas van Zaane, Karel GM Moons |
| Abstract |
Proper evaluation of new diagnostic tests is required to reduce overutilization and to limit potential negative health effects and costs related to testing. A decision analytic modelling approach may be worthwhile when a diagnostic randomized controlled trial is not feasible. We demonstrate this by assessing the cost-effectiveness of modified transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) compared with manual palpation for the detection of atherosclerosis in the ascending aorta. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 50% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 19% |
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 24 May 2020.
All research outputs
#12,869,210
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,183
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,516
of 282,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#19
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 282,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.