↓ Skip to main content

Decoding Laboratory Test Names: A Major Challenge to Appropriate Patient Care

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Decoding Laboratory Test Names: A Major Challenge to Appropriate Patient Care
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11606-012-2253-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elissa Passiment, James L. Meisel, John Fontanesi, George Fritsma, Samir Aleryani, Marisa Marques

Abstract

Clinical laboratory tests have no value if clinicians cannot quickly order and obtain the results they need. We found that efforts to obtain even the most commonly ordered tests are often derailed by excessively complex nomenclature. Ordering the right laboratory tests is critical to diagnosis and treatment, but existing mechanisms for entering lab orders actively interfere with physicians' efforts to provide good clinical care. Rather than simplifying lab orders, the advent of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems-generally programmed by non-clinicians-has introduced new and vexing practical problems. Medical laboratories have filled their test menus, whether paper or electronic, with bewildering nomenclature and abbreviations, and have failed to appreciate the dangers of assigning perilously similar names to different tests. The efficient and efficacious patient care demanded by the quality care initiative requires progress beyond traditional solutions, such as convening naming conventions, to the development of innovative software with intelligent, real-time, clinically driven search functions that will allow these programs to help rather than hinder physicians.

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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 47%
Engineering 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 12 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 March 2013.
All research outputs
#15,687,152
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#5,824
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,145
of 283,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#36
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 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 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 283,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.