| Title |
The influence of medical testing on patients’ health: an overview from the gynecologists’ perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-117 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jolande Y Vis, Myra CB van Zwieten, Patrick MM Bossuyt, Karel GM Moons, Marcel GW Dijkgraaf, Kirsten J McCaffery, Ben Willem J Mol, Brent C Opmeer |
| Abstract |
A medical tests may influence the health of patients by guiding clinical decisions, such as treatment in case of a positive test result. However, a medical test can influence the health of patients through other mechanisms as well, like giving reassurance. To make a clinical recommendation about a medical test, we should be aware of the full range of effects of that test on patients. This requires an understanding of the range of effects that medical testing can have on patients. This study evaluates the mechanisms through which medical testing can influence patients' health, other than the effect on clinical management, from a gynecologist's perspective. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 31% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 October 2013.
All research outputs
#15,281,593
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,307
of 1,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,102
of 209,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#24
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,984 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 209,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.