| Title |
Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-019-1090-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Trevor A. McGrath, David Moher, Matthew D. F. McInnes |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 46% |
| Sweden | 1 | 8% |
| Isle of Man | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Italy | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,705,685
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#938
of 2,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,479
of 360,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#26
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 360,722 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.