↓ Skip to main content

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XV. How to Use an Article About Disease Probability for Differential Diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 1999
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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.
Article details
Title
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XV. How to Use an Article About Disease Probability for Differential Diagnosis
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, April 1999
DOI 10.1001/jama.281.13.1214
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. Scott Richardson, Mark C. Wilson, Gordon H. Guyatt, Deborah J. Cook, James Nishikawa, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
United Kingdom 5 3%
Canada 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 162 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 21%
Other 28 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 28 15%
Professor 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 45 25%
Unknown 11 6%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 134 73%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 16 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 May 2025.
All research outputs
#12,345,171
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#28,623
of 42,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,174
of 54,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#95
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,272 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 73.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 54,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 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.