↓ Skip to main content

No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
262 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2005
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-5-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Penny Whiting, Roger Harbord, Jos Kleijnen

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
Canada 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 133 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 20%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Other 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Other 44 31%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Psychology 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 16 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 December 2021.
All research outputs
#17,253,161
of 21,347,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,627
of 1,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#333,443
of 461,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#182
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 461,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.