↓ Skip to main content

The science of clinical practice: disease diagnosis or patient prognosis? Evidence about “what is likely to happen” should shape clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
143 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
139 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
322 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 science of clinical practice: disease diagnosis or patient prognosis? Evidence about “what is likely to happen” should shape clinical practice
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0265-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Croft, Douglas G Altman, Jonathan J Deeks, Kate M Dunn, Alastair D Hay, Harry Hemingway, Linda LeResche, George Peat, Pablo Perel, Steffen E Petersen, Richard D Riley, Ian Roberts, Michael Sharpe, Richard J Stevens, Danielle A Van Der Windt, Michael Von Korff, Adam Timmis

Abstract

Diagnosis is the traditional basis for decision-making in clinical practice. Evidence is often lacking about future benefits and harms of these decisions for patients diagnosed with and without disease. We propose that a model of clinical practice focused on patient prognosis and predicting the likelihood of future outcomes may be more useful.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 143 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 322 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 309 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 15%
Researcher 46 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 14%
Student > Bachelor 31 10%
Other 24 7%
Other 71 22%
Unknown 58 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 129 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 12%
Computer Science 17 5%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Other 48 15%
Unknown 68 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. 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 10 January 2022.
All research outputs
#373,936
of 22,094,926 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#295
of 3,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,191
of 325,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,094,926 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 325,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.