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 |
Assessing variability in results in systematic reviews of diagnostic studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-016-0108-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christiana A. Naaktgeboren, Eleanor A. Ochodo, Wynanda A. Van Enst, Joris A. H. de Groot, Lotty Hooft, Mariska M. G. Leeflang, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Karel G. M. Moons, Johannes B. Reitsma |
| Abstract |
To describe approaches used in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies for assessing variability in estimates of accuracy between studies and to provide guidance in this area. Meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies published between May and September 2012 were systematically identified. Information on how the variability in results was investigated was extracted. Of the 53 meta-analyses included in the review, most (n=48; 91 %) presented variability in diagnostic accuracy estimates visually either through forest plots or ROC plots and the majority (n=40; 75 %) presented a test or statistical measure for the variability. Twenty-eight reviews (53 %) tested for variability beyond chance using Cochran's Q test and 31 (58 %) reviews quantified it with I(2). 7 reviews (13 %) presented between-study variance estimates (τ(2)) from random effects models and 3 of these presented a prediction interval or ellipse to facilitate interpretation. Half of all the meta-analyses specified what was considered a significant amount of variability (n=24; 49 %). Approaches to assessing variability in estimates of accuracy varied widely between diagnostic test accuracy reviews and there is room for improvement. We provide initial guidance, complemented by an overview of the currently available approaches. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 Kingdom | 4 | 27% |
| Canada | 3 | 20% |
| United States | 2 | 13% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
| Egypt | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 53% |
| Scientists | 4 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,686,157
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#582
of 2,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,828
of 395,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#9
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,015 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 71% 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 395,862 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.