↓ Skip to main content

Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2010
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-8-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Mallett, Patrick Royston, Rachel Waters, Susan Dutton, Douglas G Altman

Abstract

Appropriate choice and use of prognostic models in clinical practice require the use of good methods for both model development, and for developing prognostic indices and risk groups from the models. In order to assess reliability and generalizability for use, models need to have been validated and measures of model performance reported. We reviewed published articles to assess the methods and reporting used to develop and evaluate performance of prognostic indices and risk groups from prognostic models.

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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 3%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Canada 2 1%
Australia 2 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Vietnam 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 136 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 23%
Professor 15 10%
Other 14 9%
Student > Master 12 8%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 8 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 10%
Mathematics 10 6%
Computer Science 6 4%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 17 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 June 2020.
All research outputs
#8,670,989
of 16,403,089 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,124
of 2,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,719
of 105,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,403,089 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.0. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 105,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them