↓ Skip to main content

Visualization of Global Disease Burden for the Optimization of Patient Management and Treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Visualization of Global Disease Burden for the Optimization of Patient Management and Treatment
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00086
Pubmed ID
Authors

Winfried Schlee, Deborah A. Hall, Niklas K. Edvall, Berthold Langguth, Barbara Canlon, Christopher R. Cederroth

Abstract

The assessment and treatment of complex disorders is challenged by the multiple domains and instruments used to evaluate clinical outcome. With the large number of assessment tools typically used in complex disorders comes the challenge of obtaining an integrative view of disease status to further evaluate treatment outcome both at the individual level and at the group level. Radar plots appear as an attractive visual tool to display multivariate data on a two-dimensional graphical illustration. Here, we describe the use of radar plots for the visualization of disease characteristics applied in the context of tinnitus, a complex and heterogeneous condition, the treatment of which has shown mixed success. Data from two different cohorts, the Swedish Tinnitus Outreach Project (STOP) and the Tinnitus Research Initiative (TRI) database, were used. STOP is a population-based cohort where cross-sectional data from 1,223 non-tinnitus and 933 tinnitus subjects were analyzed. By contrast, the TRI contained data from 571 patients who underwent various treatments and whose Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score was accessible to infer treatment outcome. In the latter, 34,560 permutations were tested to evaluate whether a particular ordering of the instruments could reflect better the treatment outcome measured with the CGI. Radar plots confirmed that tinnitus subtypes such as occasional and chronic tinnitus from the STOP cohort could be strikingly different, and helped appreciate a gender bias in tinnitus severity. Radar plots with greater surface areas were consistent with greater burden, and enabled a rapid appreciation of the global distress associated with tinnitus in patients categorized according to tinnitus severity. Permutations in the arrangement of instruments allowed to identify a configuration with minimal variance and maximized surface difference between CGI groups from the TRI database, thus affording a means of optimally evaluating the outcomes in individual patients. We anticipate such a tool to become a starting point for more sophisticated measures in clinical outcomes, applicable not only in the context of tinnitus but also in other complex diseases where the integration of multiple variables is needed for a comprehensive evaluation of treatment response.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Unspecified 6 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 6 18%
Psychology 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,659,839
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#866
of 5,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,189
of 316,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#12
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,740 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 316,585 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.