| Title |
Can we quantify harm in general practice records? An assessment of precision and power using computer simulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-39 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carl de Wet, Paul Johnson, Catherine O’Donnell, Paul Bowie |
| Abstract |
Estimating harm rates for specific patient populations and detecting significant changes in them over time are essential if patient safety in general practice is to be improved. Clinical record review (CRR) is arguably the most suitable method for these purposes, but the optimal values and combinations of its parameters (such as numbers of records and practices) remain unknown. Our aims were to: 1. Determine and quantify CRR parameters; 2. Assess the precision and power of feasible CRR scenarios; and 3. Quantify the minimum requirements for adequate precision and acceptable power. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 7 | 78% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 May 2014.
All research outputs
#5,416,767
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#762
of 2,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,608
of 195,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 195,962 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.