↓ Skip to main content

A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, April 2017
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
A critical appraisal of the quality of adult dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry guidelines in osteoporosis using the AGREE II tool: An EuroAIM initiative
Published in
Insights into Imaging, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13244-017-0553-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carmelo Messina, Bianca Bignotti, Alberto Bazzocchi, Catherine M. Phan, Alberto Tagliafico, Giuseppe Guglielmi, Francesco Sardanelli, Luca Maria Sconfienza

Abstract

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most widely used technique to measure bone mineral density (BMD). Appropriate and accurate use of DXA is of great importance, and several guidelines have been developed in the last years. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of published guidelines on DXA for adults. Between June and July 2016 we conducted an online search for DXA guidelines, which were evaluated by four independent readers blinded to each other using the AGREE II instrument. A fifth independent reviewer calculated scores per each domain and agreement between reviewers' scores. Four out of 59 guidelines met inclusion criteria and were included. They were published between 2005 and 2014. Three out of four guidelines reached a high level of quality, having at least five domain scores higher than 60%. Domain 1 (Scope and Purpose) achieved the highest result (total score = 86.8 ± 3.7%). Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) had the lowest score (total score = 54.7 ± 12.5%). Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702). Overall, the quality of DXA guidelines is satisfactory when evaluated using the AGREE II instrument. The Editorial Independence domain was the most critical, thus deserving more attention when developing future guidelines. • Three of four guidelines on DXA had a high quality level (>60%). • Scope/purpose had the highest score (86.8 ± 3.7%). • Editorial Independence had the lowest score (54.7 ± 12.5%). • Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (0.230) to good (0.702).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 10 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 44%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unknown 15 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,003,652
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#168
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,677
of 313,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 313,527 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them