| Title |
Linked versus unlinked hospital discharge data on hip fractures for estimating incidence and comorbidity profiles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-12-113 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Trang Vu, Lesley Day, Caroline F Finch |
| Abstract |
Studies comparing internally linked (person-identifying) and unlinked (episodes of care) hospital discharge data (HDD) on hip fractures have mainly focused on incidence overestimation by unlinked HDD, but little is known about the impact of overestimation on patient profiles such as comorbidity estimates. In view of the continuing use of unlinked HDD in hip fracture research and the desire to apply research results to hip fracture prevention, we concurrently assessed the accuracy of both incidence and comorbidity estimates derived from unlinked HDD compared to those estimated from internally linked HDD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 23% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 25% |
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 02 August 2013.
All research outputs
#13,020,322
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,212
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,565
of 164,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#13
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 164,715 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 61% of its contemporaries.