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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reporting performance of prognostic models in cancer: a review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-8-21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan Mallett, Patrick Royston, Rachel Waters, Susan Dutton, Douglas G Altman |
| Abstract |
Appropriate choice and use of prognostic models in clinical practice require the use of good methods for both model development, and for developing prognostic indices and risk groups from the models. In order to assess reliability and generalizability for use, models need to have been validated and measures of model performance reported. We reviewed published articles to assess the methods and reporting used to develop and evaluate performance of prognostic indices and risk groups from prognostic models. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 163 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 41 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 22% |
| Professor | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 44 | 24% |
| Unknown | 14 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 93 | 52% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 8% |
| Mathematics | 11 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 6% |
| Engineering | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 April 2023.
All research outputs
#6,347,004
of 23,578,918 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,428
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,167
of 96,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,578,918 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 96,678 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.