↓ Skip to main content

The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
policy
2 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
2481 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
946 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2003
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Penny Whiting, Anne WS Rutjes, Johannes B Reitsma, Patrick MM Bossuyt, Jos Kleijnen

Abstract

In the era of evidence based medicine, with systematic reviews as its cornerstone, adequate quality assessment tools should be available. There is currently a lack of a systematically developed and evaluated tool for the assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. The aim of this project was to combine empirical evidence and expert opinion in a formal consensus method to develop a tool to be used in systematic reviews to assess the quality of primary studies of diagnostic accuracy.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 946 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 12 1%
United States 11 1%
Canada 8 <1%
Germany 7 <1%
Spain 6 <1%
Brazil 6 <1%
Netherlands 6 <1%
Colombia 4 <1%
France 3 <1%
Other 25 3%
Unknown 858 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 146 15%
Student > Master 142 15%
Researcher 140 15%
Student > Bachelor 92 10%
Other 84 9%
Other 342 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 567 60%
Unspecified 85 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 6%
Social Sciences 31 3%
Other 146 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#544,012
of 13,366,062 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#70
of 1,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,519
of 107,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,366,062 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 107,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.