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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cognitive screening test in primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista de Saúde Pública, November 2018
|
| DOI | 10.11606/s1518-8787.2018052000462 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Juliana Emy Yokomizo, Katrin Seeher, Glaucia Martins de Oliveira, Laís dos Santos Vinholi e Silva Silva, Laura Saran, Henry Brodaty, Ivan Aprahamian, Monica Sanches Yassuda, Cássio Machado de Campos Bottino |
| Abstract |
To establish the diagnostic accuracy of the Brazilian version of the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG-Br) compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in individuals with low educational level. Ninety-three patients (≥ 60 years old) from Brazilian primary care units provided sociodemographic, cognitive, and functional data. Receiver operating characteristics, areas under the curve (AUC) and logistic regressions were conducted. Sixty-eight patients with 0-4 years of education. Cases (n = 44) were older (p = 0.006) and performed worse than controls (n = 49) on all cognitive or functional measures (p < 0.001). The GPCOG-Br demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy to the MMSE (AUC = 0.90 and 0.91, respectively) and similar positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV, respectively: 0.79/0.86 for GPCOG-Br and 0.79/0.81 for MMSE). Adjusted cut-points displayed high sensitivity (all 86%) and satisfactory specificity (65%-80%). Lower educational level predicted lower cognitive performance. The GPCOG-Br is clinically well-suited for use in primary care. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,246,924
of 23,117,738 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#112
of 1,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,132
of 343,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,117,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,029 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. 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 343,798 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.