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 |
Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-82 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariska MG Leeflang, Jonathan J Deeks, Yemisi Takwoingi, Petra Macaskill |
| Abstract |
In 1996, shortly after the founding of The Cochrane Collaboration, leading figures in test evaluation research established a Methods Group to focus on the relatively new and rapidly evolving methods for the systematic review of studies of diagnostic tests. Seven years later, the Collaboration decided it was time to develop a publication format and methodology for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) reviews, as well as the software needed to implement these reviews in The Cochrane Library. A meeting hosted by the German Cochrane Centre in 2004 brought together key methodologists in the area, many of whom became closely involved in the subsequent development of the methodological framework for DTA reviews. DTA reviews first appeared in The Cochrane Library in 2008 and are now an integral part of the work of the Collaboration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 191 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 34 | 17% |
| Researcher | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 53 | 26% |
| Unknown | 29 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 104 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 3% |
| Psychology | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 29 | 14% |
| Unknown | 39 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 July 2022.
All research outputs
#4,928,166
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#979
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,424
of 223,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#12
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 223,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.