You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? an evaluation of the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient Safety in Surgery, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1754-9493-7-10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Unbeck, Kristina Schildmeijer, Peter Henriksson, Urban Jürgensen, Olav Muren, Lena Nilsson, Karin Pukk Härenstam |
| Abstract |
There has been a theoretical debate as to which retrospective record review method is the most valid, reliable, cost efficient and feasible for detecting adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and capability of two common retrospective record review methods, the "Harvard Medical Practice Study" method and the "Global Trigger Tool" in detecting adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 15% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 22% |
| Unknown | 15 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 25 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 August 2016.
All research outputs
#8,474,037
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient Safety in Surgery
#107
of 253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,103
of 209,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Safety in Surgery
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 209,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.