↓ Skip to main content

Magnitude of Potentially Inappropriate Thrombophilia Testing in the Inpatient Hospital Setting

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hospital Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Magnitude of Potentially Inappropriate Thrombophilia Testing in the Inpatient Hospital Setting
Published in
Journal of Hospital Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.12788/jhm.2819
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Laboratory costs of thrombophilia testing exceed an estimated $650 million (in US dollars) annually. Quantifying the prevalence and financial impact of potentially inappropriate testing in the inpatient hospital setting represents an integral component of the effort to reduce healthcare expenditures. We conducted a retrospective analysis of our electronic medical record to evaluate 2 years' worth of inpatient thrombophilia testing measured against preformulated appropriateness criteria. Cost data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2016 Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule. Of the 1817 orders analyzed, 777 (42.7%) were potentially inappropriate, with an associated cost of $40,422. The tests most frequently inappropriately ordered were Factor V Leiden, prothrombin gene mutation, protein C and S activity levels, antithrombin activity levels, and the lupus anticoagulant. Potentially inappropriate thrombophilia testing is common and costly. These data demonstrate a need for institution-wide changes in order to reduce unnecessary expenditures and improve patient care.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 25%
Other 4 20%
Student > Master 3 15%
Librarian 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 November 2017.
All research outputs
#9,302,167
of 32,326,393 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hospital Medicine
#1,525
of 2,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,913
of 344,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hospital Medicine
#40
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,326,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,825 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 344,273 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.