↓ 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
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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 112 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 110 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 21%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 27 24%

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
#4,521,596
of 15,744,499 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,184
of 11,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,883
of 289,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#176
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,744,499 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. 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 289,130 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 246 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.