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 |
Point-of-care tests in general practice: Hope or hype?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The European Journal of General Practice, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3109/13814788.2013.800041 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jochen Cals, Henk van Weert |
| Abstract |
Point-of-care tests are biomedical tests on patients' specimens like blood, saliva, urine or faeces, which can be used near the patient, without interference of a laboratory. The use of these tests, many of which have been recently developed, is increasing in general practice, where they add to the GP's set of diagnostic instruments. The question is, however, whether they always contribute to an effective and high-quality diagnostic process by GPs. We present a set of criteria that can be used by guideline developers, regional primary care organizations and individual GPs to evaluate a new point-of-care test in a practice setting. These criteria do not relate only to their use and quality. A point-of-care test needs to be evaluated in the right population and for the right indications, and GPs then need to use them for the indications for which they were evaluated. Expanding the range of indications can lead to an increase in false-positive and false-negative test results. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 3 | 60% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 35% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
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 07 August 2014.
All research outputs
#4,705,809
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from The European Journal of General Practice
#91
of 597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,607
of 210,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The European Journal of General Practice
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 210,604 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.