↓ Skip to main content

A targeted screening method for non-invasive vascular assessment of the lower limb

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
A targeted screening method for non-invasive vascular assessment of the lower limb
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13047-016-0181-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peta Ellen Tehan, Vivienne Helaine Chuter

Abstract

Podiatrists routinely perform non-invasive lower limb vascular assessment, however frequently cite time as a major barrier in performing regular assessment. The aim of this study was to develop an evidence-based vascular assessment method to guide podiatrists' decision-making processes to aid in timely vascular assessment in at risk populations. The sample underwent brachial pressure measurement, ankle pressures, toe pressure and Doppler waveform with colour duplex ultrasound (CFDU) used as the reference standard. Both the targeted screening method and the American Heart Association (AHA) guideline for vascular screening were then applied to the data set and sensitivity and specificity of each method was calculated. One hundred nineteen participants were included. Sensitivity of the targeted screening method (62%, 95% CI 47.17-75.35) was higher than the AHA method (49%, 95% CI 34.75-63.40), however, specificity of the AHA method (94%, 95% CI 85.62-98.37) was higher than the targeted screening method (85%, 95% CI 74.26-92.60). Diagnostic accuracy was similar with the AHA method yielding 74% diagnostic accuracy and the targeted screening method 73%. The targeted screening method and the broad international guideline demonstrated similar accuracy, however clinicians may save time using the targeted screening method. This study highlights the difficulties in obtaining accuracy in lower limb vascular assessment in general.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 31%
Student > Master 4 25%
Unspecified 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Unspecified 3 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,421,104
of 13,559,548 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#225
of 546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,844
of 376,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#22
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,559,548 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 376,402 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 53% of its contemporaries.