↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
191 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 189 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 179 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 19%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Other 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 54 29%
Unknown 19 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 31 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 November 2013.
All research outputs
#5,523,652
of 19,745,145 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,086
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,551
of 205,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#52
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,745,145 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 205,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.