↓ Skip to main content

Automated Correction of Room Location Errors in Anesthesia Information Management Systems

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, September 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Automated Correction of Room Location Errors in Anesthesia Information Management Systems
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, September 2008
DOI 10.1213/ane.0b013e31817e7b99
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard H. Epstein, Franklin Dexter, Elizabeth Piotrowski

Abstract

Anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) and operating room information management systems (ORIMS) are both used in operating rooms (OR). Anesthesia providers use AIMS to document their care in near real-time, including milestone events, and these systems automatically record vital signs from patient monitors. Circulating nurses use ORIMS primarily to document procedural information. Because of automatic documentation, AIMS would be ideal platforms for OR managerial decision support if the correct locations of cases in progress were known accurately. Trust is diminished if recommendations are poor.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 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 %
United States 4 10%
Unknown 35 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 38%
Engineering 5 13%
Computer Science 3 8%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 28%
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 17 October 2008.
All research outputs
#24,753,774
of 34,360,257 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#8,829
of 10,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,438
of 134,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#62
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,257 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,893 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 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 134,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.