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 |
Application of weighting methods for presenting risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, June 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-021-01744-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yasaman Vali, Mariska M. G. Leeflang, Patrick M. M. Bossuyt |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Colombia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
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 30 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,769,672
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#932
of 2,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,529
of 442,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#34
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 442,519 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 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.