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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Reporting methods in studies developing prognostic models in cancer: a review
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2010
|
DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-8-20 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Susan Mallett, Patrick Royston, Susan Dutton, Rachel Waters, Douglas G Altman |
Abstract |
Development of prognostic models enables identification of variables that are influential in predicting patient outcome and the use of these multiple risk factors in a systematic, reproducible way according to evidence based methods. The reliability of models depends on informed use of statistical methods, in combination with prior knowledge of disease. We reviewed published articles to assess reporting and methods used to develop new prognostic models in cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 25% |
France | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Mexico | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 169 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 34 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 16% |
Student > Master | 23 | 13% |
Professor | 14 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 13 | 7% |
Other | 34 | 19% |
Unknown | 30 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 47% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 5% |
Mathematics | 8 | 5% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
Other | 28 | 16% |
Unknown | 36 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,369,144
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,531
of 3,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,069
of 95,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 95,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.