| Title |
Retrospective checking of compliance with practice guidelines for acute stroke care: a novel experiment using openEHR’s Guideline Definition Language
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-14-39 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nadim Anani, Rong Chen, Tiago Prazeres Moreira, Sabine Koch |
| Abstract |
Providing scalable clinical decision support (CDS) across institutions that use different electronic health record (EHR) systems has been a challenge for medical informatics researchers. The lack of commonly shared EHR models and terminology bindings has been recognised as a major barrier to sharing CDS content among different organisations. The openEHR Guideline Definition Language (GDL) expresses CDS content based on openEHR archetypes and can support any clinical terminologies or natural languages. Our aim was to explore in an experimental setting the practicability of GDL and its underlying archetype formalism. A further aim was to report on the artefacts produced by this new technological approach in this particular experiment. We modelled and automatically executed compliance checking rules from clinical practice guidelines for acute stroke care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 2 | 40% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 114 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 19% |
| Researcher | 22 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 40 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2014.
All research outputs
#6,321,786
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#598
of 1,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,965
of 227,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#9
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
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 69% 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 227,074 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.