↓ Skip to main content

Traits and types of health data repositories

Overview of attention for article published in Health Information Science and Systems, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Traits and types of health data repositories
Published in
Health Information Science and Systems, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/2047-2501-2-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ted D Wade

Abstract

We review traits of reusable clinical data and offer a typology of clinical repositories with a range of known examples. Sources of clinical data suitable for research can be classified into types reflecting the data's institutional origin, original purpose, level of integration and governance. Primary data nearly always come from research studies and electronic medical records. Registries collect data on focused populations primarily to track outcomes, often using observational research methods. Warehouses are institutional information utilities repackaging clinical care data. Collections organize data from more organizations than a data warehouse, and more original data sources than a registry. Therefore even if they are heavily curated, their level of internal integration, and thus ease of use, can be less than other types. Federations are like collections except that physical control over data is distributed among donor organizations. Federations sometimes federate, giving a second level of organization. While the size, in number of patients, varies widely within each type of data source, populations over 10 K are relatively numerous, and much larger populations can be seen in warehouses and federations. One imagined ideal structure for research progress has been called an "Information Commons". It would have longitudinal, multi-leveled (environmental through molecular) data on a large population of identified, consenting individuals. These are qualities whose achievement would require long term commitment on the part of many data donors, including a willingness to make their data public.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 67 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Other 8 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 24%
Computer Science 10 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Engineering 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 February 2015.
All research outputs
#4,566,444
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Health Information Science and Systems
#21
of 92 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,172
of 226,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Information Science and Systems
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 92 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 226,817 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them