↓ Skip to main content

Computer-assisted versus oral-and-written family history taking for identifying people with elevated risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Computer-assisted versus oral-and-written family history taking for identifying people with elevated risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008489.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yannis Pappas, Igor Wei, Josip Car, Azeem Majeed, Aziz Sheikh

Abstract

Diabetes is a chronic illness characterised by insulin resistance or deficiency, resulting in elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Because diabetes tends to run in families, the collection of data is an important tool for identifying people with elevated risk of type2 diabetes. Traditionally, oral-and-written data collection methods are employed but computer-assisted history taking systems (CAHTS) are increasingly used. Although CAHTS were first described in the 1960s, there remains uncertainty about the impact of these methods on family history taking, clinical care and patient outcomes such as health-related quality of life. 

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Unknown 145 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 25%
Other 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 16 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Psychology 11 7%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 26 17%

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 29 August 2012.
All research outputs
#3,177,142
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,433
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,472
of 216,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#287
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 216,927 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.