| Title |
Computer‐assisted versus oral‐and‐written family history taking for identifying people with elevated risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008489.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yannis Pappas, Igor Wei, Josip Car, Azeem Majeed, Aziz Sheikh |
| Abstract |
Diabetes is a chronic illness characterised by insulin resistance or deficiency, resulting in elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Because diabetes tends to run in families, the collection of data is an important tool for identifying people with elevated risk of type2 diabetes. Traditionally, oral-and-written data collection methods are employed but computer-assisted history taking systems (CAHTS) are increasingly used. Although CAHTS were first described in the 1960s, there remains uncertainty about the impact of these methods on family history taking, clinical care and patient outcomes such as health-related quality of life. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 246 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 47 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 48 | 19% |
| Unknown | 68 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 10% |
| Psychology | 16 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 32 | 13% |
| Unknown | 78 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#7,387,249
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,415
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,746
of 247,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#115
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 247,349 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.