↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000022.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Beynon, Mariska M.G. Leeflang, Steve McDonald, Anne Eisinga, Ruth L Mitchell, Penny Whiting, Julie M Glanville

Abstract

A systematic and extensive search for as many eligible studies as possible is essential in any systematic review. When searching for diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies in bibliographic databases, it is recommended that terms for disease (target condition) are combined with terms for the diagnostic test (index test). Researchers have developed methodological filters to try to increase the precision of these searches. These consist of text words and database indexing terms and would be added to the target condition and index test searches.Efficiently identifying reports of DTA studies presents challenges because the methods are often not well reported in their titles and abstracts, suitable indexing terms may not be available and relevant indexing terms do not seem to be consistently assigned. A consequence of using search filters to identify records for diagnostic reviews is that relevant studies might be missed, while the number of irrelevant studies that need to be assessed may not be reduced. The current guidance for Cochrane DTA reviews recommends against the addition of a methodological search filter to target condition and index test search, as the only search approach.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 171 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 16%
Researcher 21 12%
Librarian 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 12%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Psychology 8 4%
Computer Science 7 4%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 38 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,861,889
of 16,505,271 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,595
of 11,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,284
of 166,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,505,271 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 166,929 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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 57% of its contemporaries.