↓ Skip to main content

A Practical, Global Perspective on Using Administrative Data to Conduct Intensive Care Unit Research

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
A Practical, Global Perspective on Using Administrative Data to Conduct Intensive Care Unit Research
Published in
Annals of the American Thoracic Society, September 2015
DOI 10.1513/annalsats.201503-136fr
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Various data sources can be used to conduct research on critical illness and intensive care unit (ICU) use. Most published studies derive from randomized controlled trials, large-scale clinical databases, or retrospective chart reviews. However, few investigators have access to such data sources, or possess the resources to create them. Hospital administrative data, also called health claims data, constitute an important alternative data source which can be used to address a broad range of research questions, including many that would be difficult to study in interventional studies. Such data often contain information that allows identification of ICU care, specific types of critical illness, and ICU-related procedures. The strengths of using administrative data are that some datasets are population-based, cover broad geographic regions, and are large enough to provide high statistical power and precise effect estimates. Linking hospital data to other databases regarding chronic care facilities, home care services or rehabilitation services, for example, can expand the scope of research questions that can be answered. However the limitations of administrative data must be recognized. They are not collected for research purposes, thus data elements may vary in accuracy, and key clinical variables such as ICU-specific physiologic and laboratory data are lacking. Specific efforts should be made to validate the data elements used, as has been done in several world regions. As with any other research question, it is imperative that the analysis plan be carefully defined in advance, and that appropriate attention be paid to potential sources of bias and confounding.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Lecturer 3 4%
Professor 3 4%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 30 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Psychology 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 35 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,282,766
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the American Thoracic Society
#2,795
of 2,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,119
of 266,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the American Thoracic Society
#53
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,943 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 266,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.