↓ Skip to main content

Are two readers more reliable than one? A study of upper neck ligament scoring on magnetic resonance images

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Are two readers more reliable than one? A study of upper neck ligament scoring on magnetic resonance images
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2342-13-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ansgar Espeland, Nils Vetti, Jostein Kråkenes

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies typically employ either a single expert or multiple readers in collaboration to evaluate (read) the image results. However, no study has examined whether evaluations from multiple readers provide more reliable results than a single reader. We examined whether consistency in image interpretation by a single expert might be equal to the consistency of combined readings, defined as independent interpretations by two readers, where cases of disagreement were reconciled by consensus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Spain 1 4%
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 24 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 26%
Student > Bachelor 6 22%
Other 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Psychology 3 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,102,908
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#165
of 604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,036
of 289,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 604 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 74% 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 289,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.