| Title |
Impact of Automated Alerts on Follow-Up of Post-Discharge Microbiology Results: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-012-1986-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert El-Kareh, Christopher Roy, Deborah H. Williams, Eric G. Poon |
| Abstract |
Failure to follow up microbiology results pending at the time of hospital discharge can delay diagnosis and treatment of important infections, harm patients, and increase the risk of litigation. Current systems to track pending tests are often inadequate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 64 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 41% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 July 2013.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,622
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,604
of 252,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#44
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 252,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.