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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A comparison of univariate and bivariate models in meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports , March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000037 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola Foxlee, Jennifer C. Stone, Suhail A. R. Doi |
| Abstract |
: An implicit diagnostic threshold has been thought to be the cause of between-study variation in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Bivariate models have been used to account for implicit diagnostic thresholds. However, little difference in estimates of test performance has been reported between univariate and bivariate models. This study aims to undertake another comparison of these two models in order to determine if spectrum effects could better explain the variation across studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 18% |
| Librarian | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 9% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Researcher | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 36% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
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 10 March 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports
#346
of 428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,224
of 270,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 270,996 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.