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 |
The diagnostic performance of patient symptoms in screening for COPD
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Respiratory Research, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12931-018-0853-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kate M. Johnson, Wan C. Tan, Jean Bourbeau, Don D. Sin, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, for the Canadian Cohort of Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study and the Canadian Respiratory Research Network |
| Abstract |
It is recommended that screening for COPD be restricted to symptomatic individuals, but supporting evidence is lacking. We determined the performance of wheeze, cough, phlegm, and dyspnea in discriminating COPD versus non-COPD in a population-based sample of 1332 adults. Area Under the Receiver Operating Curves (AUC) indicated that symptoms had modest performance whether assessed individually (AUCs 0.55-0.62), or in combination (AUC for number of symptoms as the predictor 0.64). AUC improved with the inclusion of multiple other factors (AUC 0.71). Restricting screening to symptomatic individuals is unlikely to substantially improve the yield of general population screening for undiagnosed COPD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 22% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,544,177
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#272
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,035
of 341,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#9
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 341,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.