↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in people with diabetes: the international research collaboration for the prediction of diabetic foot ulcerations (PODUS)
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fay Crawford, Chantelle Anandan, Francesca M Chappell, Gordon D Murray, Jacqueline F Price, Aziz Sheikh, Colin R Simpson, Martin Maxwell, Gerard P Stansby, Matthew J Young, Caroline A Abbott, Andrew JM Boulton, Edward J Boyko, Thomas Kastenbauer, Graham P Leese, Matteo Monami, Matilde Monteiro-Soares, Stephen J Rith-Najarian, Aristidis Veves, Nikki Coates, William J Jeffcoate, Nicola Leech, Tom Fahey, Jayne Tierney

Abstract

Diabetes-related lower limb amputations are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and are usually preceded by foot ulceration. The available systematic reviews of aggregate data are compromised because the primary studies report both adjusted and unadjusted estimates. As adjusted meta-analyses of aggregate data can be challenging, the best way to standardise the analytical approach is to conduct a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD).There are however many challenges and fundamental methodological omissions are common; protocols are rare and the assessment of the risk of bias arising from the conduct of individual studies is frequently not performed, largely because of the absence of widely agreed criteria for assessing the risk of bias in this type of review. In this protocol we propose key methodological approaches to underpin our IPD systematic review of prognostic factors of foot ulceration in diabetes.Review questions;1. What are the most highly prognostic factors for foot ulceration (i.e. symptoms, signs, diagnostic tests) in people with diabetes?2. Can the data from each study be adjusted for a consistent set of adjustment factors?3. Does the model accuracy change when patient populations are stratified according to demographic and/or clinical characteristics?

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 94 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 10%
Other 29 29%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Computer Science 4 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 22 22%

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 16 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,263,666
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,501
of 2,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,745
of 307,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#28
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,002 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 307,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.