| Title |
Structured reporting: if, why, when, how—and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13244-012-0148-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. M. L. Bosmans, L. Peremans, M. Menni, A. M. De Schepper, P. O. Duyck, P. M. Parizel |
| Abstract |
To determine why, despite growing evidence that radiologists and referring physicians prefer structured reporting (SR) to free text (FT) reporting, SR has not been widely adopted in most radiology departments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 23% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 50% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 17% |
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 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,907,830
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#678
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,860
of 160,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 160,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 5 of them.