↓ Skip to main content

EMBASE search strategies for identifying methodologically sound diagnostic studies for use by clinicians and researchers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
connotea
1 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.
Title
EMBASE search strategies for identifying methodologically sound diagnostic studies for use by clinicians and researchers
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2005
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-3-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy L Wilczynski, R Brian Haynes, the Hedges Team

Abstract

Accurate diagnosis by clinicians is the cornerstone of decision making for recommending clinical interventions. The current best evidence from research concerning diagnostic tests changes unpredictably as science advances. Both clinicians and researchers need dependable access to published evidence concerning diagnostic accuracy. Bibliographic databases such as EMBASE provide the most widely available entrée to this literature. The objective of this study was to develop search strategies that optimize the retrieval of methodologically sound diagnostic studies from EMBASE for use by clinicians.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 4%
Spain 3 4%
Italy 2 3%
Peru 2 3%
India 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 62 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 19%
Librarian 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 10%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 20 26%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 53%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 12 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#6,410,071
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,413
of 3,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,452
of 59,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 59,478 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.