↓ Skip to main content

Reporting studies on time to diagnosis: proposal of a guideline by an international panel (REST)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Reporting studies on time to diagnosis: proposal of a guideline by an international panel (REST)
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0690-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elise Launay, Jérémie F. Cohen, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Pierre Buekens, Jonathan Deeks, Timothy Dye, Richard Feltbower, Andrea Ferrari, Michael Kramer, Mariska Leeflang, David Moher, Karel G. Moons, Erik von Elm, Philippe Ravaud, Martin Chalumeau

Abstract

Studies on time to diagnosis are an increasing field of clinical research that may help to plan corrective actions and identify inequities in access to healthcare. Specific features of time to diagnosis studies, such as how participants were selected and how time to diagnosis was defined and measured, are poorly reported. The present study aims to derive a reporting guideline for studies on time to diagnosis. Each item of a list previously used to evaluate the completeness of reporting of studies on time to diagnosis was independently evaluated by a core panel of international experts (n = 11) for relevance and readability before an open electronic discussion allowed consensus to be reached on a refined list. The list was then submitted with an explanatory document to first, last and/or corresponding authors (n = 98) of published systematic reviews on time to diagnosis (n = 45) for relevance and readability, and finally approved by the core expert panel. The refined reporting guideline consists of a 19-item checklist: six items are about the process of participant selection (with a suggested flowchart), six about the definition and measurement of time to diagnosis, and three about optional analyses of associations between time to diagnosis and participant characteristics and health outcomes. Of 24 responding authors of systematic reviews, more than 21 (≥88 %) rated the items as relevant, and more than 17 (≥70 %) as readable; 19 of 22 (86 %) authors stated that they would potentially use the reporting guideline in the future. We propose a reporting guideline (REST) that could help authors, reviewers, and editors of time to diagnosis study reports to improve the completeness and the accuracy of their reporting.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 62%
Social Sciences 4 12%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 18%

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 30 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,775,380
of 16,750,089 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,576
of 2,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,813
of 272,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,750,089 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 272,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them