↓ Skip to main content

The value of screening in patient populations with high prevalence of a disorder

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
The value of screening in patient populations with high prevalence of a disorder
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-12-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Goldberg

Abstract

Thombs and colleagues have shown that screening consecutive attendees in primary care settings in high income countries for depression is not worthwhile. However, it is dangerous to generalize from high income countries such as the USA to the rest of the world. The positive predictive value of any screening test for depression is affected by the prevalence of the disorder in the population being considered. Populations with an increased prevalence of depression, such as those with chronic physical disorders, or with a history of depression or other mental health problems may benefit from screening, even in high income countries. Populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC) may also benefit from screening if they are experiencing severe social adversity, including poverty. Two examples are given, in which screening with a brief screening questionnaire was followed by collaborative stepped care, to the considerable benefit of the patients in LMIC. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/13.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 6%
India 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 48 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 33%
Psychology 7 13%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 July 2019.
All research outputs
#13,907,430
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,856
of 3,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,625
of 307,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#47
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 307,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.