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 |
Genealogy of Instruments for Prodrome Evaluation of Psychosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00025 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Gabriel Daneault, Emmanuel Stip, Refer-O-Scope Group |
| Abstract |
Objective: Over the last 15 years, researchers from around the world have developed instruments for assessing the risk of conversion to psychosis. The objective of this article is to review the literature on these instruments by focusing on genealogy links and on their performance in predicting conversion to psychosis. Method: A systematic review of articles published since 1980 relating to risk assessment instruments for conversion to psychosis by manual search and consultation of electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Results: Three hundred ninety one (391) publications were selected and analyzed. Among these, 22 instruments were identified. These instruments are briefly described and placed on a timeline according to their year of publication. A code of positions, patterns, and forms is used to schematize the characteristics of each instrument. A table is presented to show changes in rates of conversion to psychosis within cohorts of subjects considered at risk according to the instruments. A second code of shades and outlines is used to schematize the characteristics of each cohort of patients. The two graphics set the stage for a discussion about the major strategies that were adopted to improve the performance of risk assessment instruments. Conclusion: These graphics allow a better understanding of the origin, evolution, current status, strengths, shortcomings, and future prospects of research on risk assessment instruments. Clinical ImplicationsThe integration of theoretical approaches, the multicenter studies, and the pre-selection of patients with short questionnaires were the main strategies to improve the performance of instruments assessing the risk of conversion to psychosis.These instruments are better at predicting conversion to psychosis than conventional variables within a more limited time span and can therefore enable the evaluation of various risk factors and biomarkers that may be associated with psychosis. LimitationsThe studies selected for this review of literature were not classified according to their methodological quality.These studies are based on heterogeneous populations and this must be taken into account when comparing the rates of conversion to psychosis.This review of literature was based on published data only and they were no direct communication with the authors of these instruments. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 22% |
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 26 | 47% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
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 05 July 2020.
All research outputs
#6,391,543
of 22,707,247 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#2,785
of 9,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,800
of 280,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#80
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,707,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 280,717 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.