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 |
Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-015-0227-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sang-Kyu Kim, Seon-Ha Kim, Min-Woo Jo, Sang-il Lee |
| Abstract |
The aim of the present study was to estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and to explore the responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D indices in stroke. We used observational longitudinal survey data of EQ-5D and SF-36 that were administered to stroke patients at baseline and at 10 months. A range of MIDs for both indexes was estimated using anchor-based approaches. The modified Rankin scale and the Barthel index were used as an anchor. The MID estimates for EQ-5D ranged from 0.08 to 0.12 and those for SF-6D ranged from 0.04 to 0.14 in stroke patients. The MID values for these two utility measures differed in absolute magnitude, as the SF-6D index has wider range that that of the EQ-5D index. The MID values for these two utility measures differed in absolute magnitude, as the SF-6D index has wider range that that of the EQ-5D index. These MID estimates may assist the interpretation of health related quality of life assessments related to health care intervention in stroke patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 35% |
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 20 August 2020.
All research outputs
#7,355,930
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#849
of 2,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,743
of 274,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#3
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,297 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 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 274,195 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.