↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of surveillance-based metrics for the assessment and monitoring of disease detection: simulation study about type 2 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Comparison of surveillance-based metrics for the assessment and monitoring of disease detection: simulation study about type 2 diabetes
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0328-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralph Brinks, Annika Hoyer, Deborah B. Rolka, Oliver Kuss, Edward W. Gregg

Abstract

Screening and detection of cases are a common public health priority for treatable chronic conditions with long subclinical periods. However, the validity of commonly-used metrics from surveillance systems for rates of detection (or case-finding) have not been evaluated. Using data from a Danish diabetes register and a recently developed illness-death model of chronic diseases with subclinical conditions, we simulate two scenarios of different performance of case-finding. We report different epidemiological indices to assess case-finding in both scenarios and compare the validity of the results. The commonly used ratio of detected cases over total cases may lead to misleading conclusions. Instead, the ratio of undetected cases over persons without a diagnosis is a more valid index to distinguish the quality of case-finding. However, incidence-based measures are preferable to prevalence based indicators. Prevalence-based indices for assessing case-finding should be interpreted with caution. If possible, incidence-based indices should be preferred.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 21%
Professor 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 36%
Psychology 3 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Design 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%

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 01 March 2020.
All research outputs
#5,275,702
of 17,108,355 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#815
of 1,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,286
of 273,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,108,355 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 273,361 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 63% of its contemporaries.
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