Title |
Systematic review of clinical decision support interventions with potential for inpatient cost reduction
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, December 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-135 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Christopher L Fillmore, Bruce E Bray, Kensaku Kawamoto |
Abstract |
Healthcare costs are increasing rapidly and at an unsustainable rate in many countries, and inpatient hospitalizations are a significant driver of these costs. Clinical decision support (CDS) represents a promising approach to not only improve care but to reduce costs in the inpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to systematically review trials of CDS interventions with the potential to reduce inpatient costs, so as to identify promising interventions for more widespread implementation and to inform future research in this area. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 States | 2 | 33% |
Argentina | 1 | 17% |
India | 1 | 17% |
Chile | 1 | 17% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 3% |
Germany | 2 | 2% |
Canada | 2 | 2% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Singapore | 1 | <1% |
Austria | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 108 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 19 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
Researcher | 14 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
Other | 30 | 25% |
Unknown | 23 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 30% |
Computer Science | 16 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 5% |
Other | 17 | 14% |
Unknown | 29 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 July 2014.
All research outputs
#7,438,092
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#762
of 1,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,246
of 286,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#26
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,985 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 286,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.