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 |
Ascertaining invasive breast cancer cases; the validity of administrative and self-reported data sources in Australia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Kemp, David B Preen, Christobel Saunders, C D’Arcy J Holman, Max Bulsara, Kris Rogers, Elizabeth E Roughead |
| Abstract |
Statutory State-based cancer registries are considered the 'gold standard' for researchers identifying cancer cases in Australia, but research using self-report or administrative health datasets (e.g. hospital records) may not have linkage to a Cancer Registry and need to identify cases. This study investigated the validity of administrative and self-reported data compared with records in a State-wide Cancer Registry in identifying invasive breast cancer cases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Ghana | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 25% |
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 22% |
| Unknown | 2 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 50% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 2 | 6% |
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 13 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,158,693
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,480
of 2,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,899
of 290,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#27
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 290,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.