↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based Medicine: Answering Questions of Diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Medicine & Research, February 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
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.
Title
Evidence-based Medicine: Answering Questions of Diagnosis
Published in
Clinical Medicine & Research, February 2004
DOI 10.3121/cmr.2.1.63
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Zakowski, Christine Seibert, Wisconsin Selma VanEyck

Abstract

Using medical evidence to effectively guide medical practice is an important skill for all physicians to learn. The purpose of this article is to understand how to ask and evaluate questions of diagnosis, and then apply this knowledge to the new diagnostic test of CT colonography to demonstrate its applicability. Sackett and colleagues have developed a step-wise approach to answering questions of diagnosis: Step1: Define a clinical question and its four components: Patient, intervention, comparison and outcome. Step 2: Find the evidence that will help answer the question. PubMed Clinical Queries is an efficient database to accomplish this step. Step 3: Assess whether this evidence is valid and important. A quick review of the methods and results section will help to answer these two questions. Step 4: Apply the evidence to the patient. This step includes: assessing whether the test can be used; determining if it will help the patient; finding whether the study patients are similar to the patient in question; determining a pretest probability; and deciding if the test will change one's management of the patient. A relatively new diagnostic test, CT colonography, is explored as a scenario in which the steps presented by Sackett et al.1 can be helpful. A patient who is interested in completing a CT colonography instead of a colonoscopy is the basis of the discussion. Because a CT colonography does not detect polyps of less than 10 mm accurately, many patient are not likely to prefer this test over a colonoscopy. Evidence-based medicine is an effective strategy for finding, evaluating, and critically appraising diagnostic tests, treatment and application. This skill will help physicians interpret and explain the medical information patients read or hear about.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 43 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Other 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Computer Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 7 15%
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 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,811,815
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Medicine & Research
#111
of 300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,983
of 147,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Medicine & Research
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. 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 147,338 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 80% of its contemporaries.
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.