↓ Skip to main content

Screening with urinary dipsticks for reducing morbidity and mortality

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Screening with urinary dipsticks for reducing morbidity and mortality
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010007.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lasse T Krogsbøll, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche

Abstract

Urinary dipsticks are sometimes used for screening asymptomatic people, and for case-finding among inpatients or outpatients who do not have genitourinary symptoms. Abnormalities identified on screening sometimes lead to additional investigations, which may identify serious disease, such as bladder cancer and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Urinary dipstick screening could improve prognoses due to earlier detection, but could also lead to unnecessary and potentially invasive follow-up testing and unnecessary treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 126 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 20%
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 30 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Psychology 7 5%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 35 27%

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 30 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,866,748
of 17,362,547 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,355
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,580
of 295,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#175
of 244 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,362,547 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 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 295,386 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 244 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.