↓ Skip to main content

Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Incorporating quality assessments of primary studies in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-14-33
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleanor A Ochodo, Wynanda A van Enst, Christiana A Naaktgeboren, Joris AH de Groot, Lotty Hooft, Karel GM Moons, Johannes B Reitsma, Patrick M Bossuyt, Mariska MG Leeflang

Abstract

Drawing conclusions from systematic reviews of test accuracy studies without considering the methodological quality (risk of bias) of included studies may lead to unwarranted optimism about the value of the test(s) under study. We sought to identify to what extent the results of quality assessment of included studies are incorporated in the conclusions of diagnostic accuracy reviews.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Peru 1 3%
Egypt 1 3%
Unknown 33 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 42%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Psychology 3 8%
Philosophy 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,366,246
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,732
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,360
of 221,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#29
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 221,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.