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 assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-163 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian H Willis, Muireann Quigley |
| Abstract |
Over the last decade there have been a number of guidelines published, aimed at improving the quality of reporting in published studies and reviews. In systematic reviews this may be measured by their compliance with the PRISMA statement. This review aims to evaluate the quality of reporting in published meta-analyses of diagnostic tests, using the PRISMA statement and establish whether there has been a measurable improvement over time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 2 | 25% |
| Mexico | 2 | 25% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 13% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 20% |
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 21 January 2012.
All research outputs
#6,203,177
of 23,523,017 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#934
of 2,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,348
of 244,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,523,017 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 244,421 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.