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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Chapter 12: Systematic Review of Prognostic Tests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-011-1899-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas S. Rector, Brent C. Taylor, Timothy J. Wilt |
| Abstract |
A number of new biological markers are being studied as predictors of disease or adverse medical events among those who already have a disease. Systematic reviews of this growing literature can help determine whether the available evidence supports use of a new biomarker as a prognostic test that can more accurately place patients into different prognostic groups to improve treatment decisions and the accuracy of outcome predictions. Exemplary reviews of prognostic tests are not widely available, and the methods used to review diagnostic tests do not necessarily address the most important questions about prognostic tests that are used to predict the time-dependent likelihood of future patient outcomes. We provide suggestions for those interested in conducting systematic reviews of a prognostic test. The proposed use of the prognostic test should serve as the framework for a systematic review and to help define the key questions. The outcome probabilities or level of risk and other characteristics of prognostic groups are the most salient statistics for review and perhaps meta-analysis. Reclassification tables can help determine how a prognostic test affects the classification of patients into different prognostic groups, hence their treatment. Review of studies of the association between a potential prognostic test and patient outcomes would have little impact other than to determine whether further development as a prognostic test might be warranted. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 17% |
| Professor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 49% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
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 17 December 2012.
All research outputs
#7,943,894
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4,251
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,384
of 167,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#49
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 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 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 167,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.