↓ 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 (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Other 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Psychology 3 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

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
#7,210,555
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,064
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,394
of 310,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#22
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 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 2,027 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 310,113 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 62% of its contemporaries.
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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.