↓ Skip to main content

Challenges in Outcome Measurement: Clinical Research Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Challenges in Outcome Measurement: Clinical Research Perspective
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11999-013-3194-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel P. O’Connor, Mark R. Brinker

Abstract

Comparative effectiveness research evaluates treatments as actually delivered in routine clinical practice, shifting research focus from efficacy and internal validity to effectiveness and external validity ("generalizability"). Such research requires accurate assessments of the numbers of patients treated and the completeness of their followup, their clinical outcomes, and the setting in which their care was delivered. Choosing measures and methods for clinical outcome research to produce meaningful information that may be used to improve patient care presents a number of challenges. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Orthopaedic surgery research has many stakeholders, including patients, providers, payers, and policy makers. A major challenge in orthopaedic surgery outcome measurement and clinical research is providing all of these users with valid information for their respective decision making. At present, no plan exists for capturing data on such a broad scale and scope. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: Practical challenges include identifying and obtaining resources for widespread data collection and merging multiple data sources. Challenges of study design include sampling to obtain representative data, timing of data collection in the episode of care, and minimizing missing data and study dropout. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Resource limitations may be addressed by repurposing existing clinical resources and capitalizing on technologic advances to increase efficiencies. Increasing use of rigorous, well-designed observational research designs can provide information that may be unattainable in clinical trials. Such study designs should incorporate methods to minimize missing data, to sample multiple providers, facilities, and patients, and to include evaluation of potential confounding variables to minimize bias and allow generalization to broad populations.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 September 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#6,335
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,737
of 226,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#66
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 226,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.