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 |
Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies: an exploratory method for investigating the impact of missing thresholds
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-4-12 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard D Riley, Ikhlaaq Ahmed, Joie Ensor, Yemisi Takwoingi, Amanda Kirkham, R Katie Morris, J Pieter Noordzij, Jonathan J Deeks |
| Abstract |
Primary studies examining the accuracy of a continuous test evaluate its sensitivity and specificity at one or more thresholds. Meta-analysts then usually perform a separate meta-analysis for each threshold. However, the number of studies available for each threshold is often very different, as primary studies are inconsistent in the thresholds reported. Furthermore, of concern is selective reporting bias, because primary studies may be less likely to report a threshold when it gives low sensitivity and/or specificity estimates. This may lead to biased meta-analysis results. We developed an exploratory method to examine the potential impact of missing thresholds on conclusions from a test accuracy meta-analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 Kingdom | 4 | 27% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 21% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 23% |
| Mathematics | 5 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#4,074,084
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#782
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,390
of 355,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#21
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 355,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.