↓ Skip to main content

The implications of biomarker evidence for systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
The implications of biomarker evidence for systematic reviews
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-176
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miew Keen Choong, Guy Tsafnat

Abstract

In Evidence-Based Medicine, clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews are crucial devices for medical practitioners in making clinical decision. Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to support health care decisions for specific circumstances whereas systematic reviews are summaries of evidence on clearly formulated clinical questions. Biomarkers are biological measurements (primarily molecular) that are used to diagnose, predict treatment outcomes and prognosticate disease and are increasingly used in randomized controlled trials (RCT).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 4%
New Zealand 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 26%
Researcher 4 17%
Unspecified 2 9%
Lecturer 2 9%
Librarian 2 9%
Other 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 17%
Unspecified 3 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 March 2013.
All research outputs
#6,959,452
of 12,857,464 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#685
of 1,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,765
of 250,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#46
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,857,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 250,296 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.