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 |
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Imaging, October 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2342-5-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steve Goodacre, Fiona Sampson, Steve Thomas, Edwin van Beek, Alex Sutton |
| Abstract |
Ultrasound (US) has largely replaced contrast venography as the definitive diagnostic test for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We aimed to derive a definitive estimate of the diagnostic accuracy of US for clinically suspected DVT and identify study-level factors that might predict accuracy. |
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 States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 233 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 10% |
| Researcher | 24 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 20 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 59 | 25% |
| Unknown | 59 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 132 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Engineering | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 20 | 8% |
| Unknown | 65 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 October 2020.
All research outputs
#14,158,070
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#188
of 588 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,390
of 59,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 588 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 59,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.