| Title |
Vascular disease in women: comparison of diagnoses in hospital episode statistics and general practice records in England
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-161 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
F Lucy Wright, Jane Green, Dexter Canoy, Benjamin J Cairns, Angela Balkwill, Valerie Beral |
| Abstract |
Electronic linkage to routine administrative datasets, such as the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England, is increasingly used in medical research. Relatively little is known about the reliability of HES diagnostic information for epidemiological studies. In the United Kingdom (UK), general practitioners hold comprehensive records for individuals relating to their primary, secondary and tertiary care. For a random sample of participants in a large UK cohort, we compared vascular disease diagnoses in HES and general practice records to assess agreement between the two sources. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
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 19 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,154,868
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,373
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,465
of 183,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 183,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.