For this special article, we reviewed the computer code, used to extract the data, and the text of all 47 studies published between January 2006 and August 2017 using anesthesia information management system (AIMS) data from Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH). Data from this institution were used in the largest number (P = .0007) of papers describing the use of AIMS published in this time frame. The AIMS was replaced in April 2017, making this finite sample finite. The objective of the current article was to identify factors that made TJUH successful in publishing anesthesia informatics studies. We examined the structured query language used for each study to examine the extent to which databases outside of the AIMS were used. We examined data quality from the perspectives of completeness, correctness, concordance, plausibility, and currency. Our results were that most could not have been completed without external database sources (36/47, 76.6%; P = .0003 compared with 50%). The operating room management system was linked to the AIMS and was used significantly more frequently (26/36, 72%) than other external sources. Access to these external data sources was provided, allowing exploration of data quality. The TJUH AIMS used high-resolution timestamps (to the nearest 3 milliseconds) and created audit tables to track changes to clinical documentation. Automatic data were recorded at 1-minute intervals and were not editable; data cleaning occurred during analysis. Few paired events with an expected order were out of sequence. Although most data elements were of high quality, there were notable exceptions, such as frequent missing values for estimated blood loss, height, and weight. Some values were duplicated with different units, and others were stored in varying locations. Our conclusions are that linking the TJUH AIMS to the operating room management system was a critical step in enabling publication of multiple studies using AIMS data. Access to this and other external databases by analysts with a high degree of anesthesia domain knowledge was necessary to be able to assess the quality of the AIMS data and ensure that the data pulled for studies were appropriate. For anesthesia departments seeking to increase their academic productivity using their AIMS as a data source, our experiences may provide helpful guidance.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
2
4%
Other
2
4%
Unknown
22
47%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 August 2019.
All research outputs
#22,344,763
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#8,096
of 10,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,146
of 372,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#76
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 372,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
