↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of dementia recorded in routinely collected hospital admission data in England with dementia recorded in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 152)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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.
Title
Comparison of dementia recorded in routinely collected hospital admission data in England with dementia recorded in primary care
Published in
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12982-016-0053-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Brown, Oksana Kirichek, Angela Balkwill, Gillian Reeves, Valerie Beral, Cathie Sudlow, John Gallacher, Jane Green

Abstract

Electronic linkage of UK cohorts to routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) records provides virtually complete follow-up for cause-specific hospital admissions and deaths. The reliability of dementia diagnoses recorded in NHS hospital data is not well documented. For a sample of Million Women Study participants in England we compared dementia recorded in routinely collected NHS hospital data (Hospital Episode Statistics: HES) with dementia recorded in two separate sources of primary care information: a primary care database [Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), n = 340] and a survey of study participants' General Practitioners (GPs, n = 244). Dementia recorded in HES fully agreed both with CPRD and with GP survey data for 85% of women; it did not agree for 1 and 4%, respectively. Agreement was uncertain for the remaining 14 and 11%, respectively; and among those classified as having uncertain agreement in CPRD, non-specific terms compatible with dementia, such as 'memory loss', were recorded in the CPRD database for 79% of the women. Agreement was significantly better (p < 0.05 for all comparisons) for women with HES diagnoses for Alzheimer's disease (95 and 94% agreement with any dementia for CPRD and GP survey, respectively) and for vascular dementia (88 and 88%, respectively) than for women with a record only of dementia not otherwise specified (70 and 72%, respectively). Dementia in the same woman was first mentioned an average 1.6 (SD 2.6) years earlier in primary care (CPRD) than in hospital (HES) data. Age-specific rates for dementia based on the hospital admission data were lower than the rates based on the primary care data, but were similar if the delay in recording in HES was taken into account. Dementia recorded in routinely collected NHS hospital admission data for women in England agrees well with primary care records of dementia assessed separately from two different sources, and is sufficiently reliable for epidemiological research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 20%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 5 5%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 27 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,705,272
of 25,055,009 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#32
of 152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,100
of 320,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,055,009 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 320,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.