| Title |
Big Data in Health: a Literature Review from the Year 2005
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-016-0565-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Isabel de la Torre Díez, Héctor Merino Cosgaya, Begoña Garcia-Zapirain, Miguel López-Coronado |
| Abstract |
The information stored in healthcare systems has increased over the last ten years, leading it to be considered Big Data. There is a wealth of health information ready to be analysed. However, the sheer volume raises a challenge for traditional methods. The aim of this article is to conduct a cutting-edge study on Big Data in healthcare from 2005 to the present. This literature review will help researchers to know how Big Data has developed in the health industry and open up new avenues for research. Information searches have been made on various scientific databases such as Pubmed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science for Big Data in healthcare. The search criteria were "Big Data" and "health" with a date range from 2005 to the present. A total of 9724 articles were found on the databases. 9515 articles were discarded as duplicates or for not having a title of interest to the study. 209 articles were read, with the resulting decision that 46 were useful for this study. 52.6 % of the articles used were found in Science Direct, 23.7 % in Pubmed, 22.1 % through Scopus and the remaining 2.6 % through the Web of Science. Big Data has undergone extremely high growth since 2011 and its use is becoming compulsory in developed nations and in an increasing number of developing nations. Big Data is a step forward and a cost reducer for public and private healthcare. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 16% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 19 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 14% |
| Engineering | 14 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 29 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,248,398
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#92
of 1,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,544
of 354,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,153 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 354,870 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 20 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 90% of its contemporaries.