↓ Skip to main content

Informative graphing of continuous safety variables relative to normal reference limits

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Informative graphing of continuous safety variables relative to normal reference limits
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12874-018-0504-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher D. Breder

Abstract

Interpreting graphs of continuous safety variables can be complicated because differences in age, gender, and testing site methodologies data may give rise to multiple reference limits. Furthermore, data below the lower limit of normal are compressed relative to those points above the upper limit of normal. The objective of this study is to develop a graphing technique that addresses these issues and is visually intuitive. A mock dataset with multiple reference ranges is initially used to develop the graphing technique. Formulas are developed for conditions where data are above the upper limit of normal, normal, below the lower limit of normal, and below the lower limit of normal when the data value equals zero. After the formulae are developed, an anonymized dataset from an actual set of trials for an approved drug is evaluated comparing the technique developed in this study to standard graphical methods. Formulas are derived for the novel graphing method based on multiples of the normal limits. The formula for values scaled between the upper and lower limits of normal is a novel application of a readily available scaling formula. The formula for the lower limit of normal is novel and addresses the issue of this value potentially being indeterminate when the result to be scaled as a multiple is zero. The formulae and graphing method described in this study provides a visually intuitive method to graph continuous safety data including laboratory values, vital sign data.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Mathematics 1 14%
Computer Science 1 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,819,018
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#827
of 2,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,578
of 327,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#22
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 327,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.