↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of approaches to estimate confidence intervals of post-test probabilities of diagnostic test results in a nested case-control study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Comparison of approaches to estimate confidence intervals of post-test probabilities of diagnostic test results in a nested case-control study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-166
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bas van Zaane, Yvonne Vergouwe, A Rogier T Donders, Karel GM Moons

Abstract

Nested case-control studies become increasingly popular as they can be very efficient for quantifying the diagnostic accuracy of costly or invasive tests or (bio)markers. However, they do not allow for direct estimation of the test's predictive values or post-test probabilities, let alone for their confidence intervals (CIs). Correct estimates of the predictive values itself can easily be obtained using a simple correction by the (inverse) sampling fractions of the cases and controls. But using this correction to estimate the corresponding standard error (SE), falsely increases the number of patients that are actually studied, yielding too small CIs. We compared different approaches for estimating the SE and thus CI of predictive values or post-test probabilities of diagnostic test results in a nested case-control study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 1 5%
France 1 5%
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 17 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 15%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 25%
Mathematics 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 2 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 November 2012.
All research outputs
#6,707,072
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#627
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,690
of 135,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#44
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 135,631 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 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 56% of its contemporaries.