You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, May 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J.A. Doust, E. Pietrzak, S. Sanders, P.P. Glasziou |
| Abstract |
Methods to identify studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy are less well developed than for reviews of intervention studies. This study assessed (1) the sensitivity and precision of five published search strategies and (2) the reliability and accuracy of reviewers screening the results of the search strategy. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 98 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Librarian | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Professor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 50 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 56 | 53% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#4,835,465
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#1,672
of 4,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,318
of 70,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,782 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 70,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.