↓ Skip to main content

Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Uptake of newer methodological developments and the deployment of meta-analysis in diagnostic test research: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-11-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian H Willis, Muireann Quigley

Abstract

The last decade has seen a number of methodological developments in meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies. However, it is unclear whether such developments have permeated the wider research community and on which applications they are being deployed. The objective was to assess the uptake and deployment of the main methodological developments in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests, and identify the tests and target disorders most commonly evaluated by meta-analysis.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 43 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 26%
Researcher 11 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 50%
Linguistics 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 7 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 June 2011.
All research outputs
#15,233,109
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,498
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,814
of 108,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 108,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.