↓ Skip to main content

The Aarhus statement on cancer diagnostic research: turning recommendations into new survey instruments

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
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
The Aarhus statement on cancer diagnostic research: turning recommendations into new survey instruments
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3476-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Domenica Coxon, Christine Campbell, Fiona M. Walter, Suzanne E. Scott, Richard D. Neal, Peter Vedsted, Jon Emery, Greg Rubin, William Hamilton, David Weller

Abstract

Over recent years there has been a growth in cancer early diagnosis (ED) research, which requires valid measurement of routes to diagnosis and diagnostic intervals. The Aarhus Statement, published in 2012, provided methodological guidance to generate valid data on these key pre-diagnostic measures. However, there is still a wide variety of measuring instruments of varying quality in published research. In this paper we test comprehension of self-completion ED questionnaire items, based on Aarhus Statement guidance, and seek input from patients, GPs and ED researchers to refine these questions. We used personal interviews and consensus approaches to generate draft ED questionnaire items, then a combination of focus groups and telephone interviews to test comprehension and obtain feedback. A framework analysis approach was used, to identify themes and potential refinements to the items. We found that many of the questionnaire items still prompted uncertainty in respondents, in both routes to diagnosis and diagnostic interval measurement. Uncertainty was greatest in the context of multiple or vague symptoms, and potentially ambiguous time-points (such as 'date of referral'). There are limits on the validity of self-completion questionnaire responses, and refinements to the wording of questions may not be able to completely overcome these limitations. It's important that ED researchers use the best identifiable measuring instruments, but accommodate inevitable uncertainty in the interpretation of their results. Every effort should be made to increase clarity of questions and responses, and use of two or more data sources should be considered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 21%
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Other 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Unspecified 6 32%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 2 11%

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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,268,694
of 13,599,972 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#543
of 4,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,871
of 264,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,599,972 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,553 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 264,453 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 84% of its contemporaries.
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