↓ Skip to main content

Methodological challenges in appraising evidence on diagnostic testing for WHO guidelines on hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus infection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Methodological challenges in appraising evidence on diagnostic testing for WHO guidelines on hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus infection
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2766-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roger Chou, Philippa Easterbrook, Margaret Hellard

Abstract

Linking persons with hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) infection with appropriate prevention and treatment requires that they first be diagnosed. The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed its first guidelines on testing for chronic HBV and HCV infection, using a framework based on methods from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group for the formulation of recommendations, including determining the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence. Recommendations were formulated based on the overall quality of the evidence, in addition to other considerations, including the balance between benefits and harms, values and preferences, feasibility and resource implications. This article summarizes methodological challenges and additional considerations encountered in applying these procedures to diagnostic testing for viral hepatitis, and strategies to address these. Direct evidence on the effects of tests and test strategies on clinical outcomes was not available. Given the availability of effective treatments for HBV and HCV that are generally acceptable to patients, the Guidelines Development Group (GDG) considered diagnostic accuracy a reasonable surrogate for clinical outcomes. In order to increase the number of patients identified with chronic HBV and HCV infection who could benefit from treatments, the GDG determined that tests and testing strategies associated with slightly lower diagnostic accuracy could be recommended when associated with lower costs; increased testing access, uptake, and linkage to care; greater feasibility; or if preferred by patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,483,026
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,530
of 7,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,076
of 329,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#83
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 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 7,721 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 329,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.