↓ Skip to main content

Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? an evaluation of the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool”

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Safety in Surgery, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 146)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Is detection of adverse events affected by record review methodology? an evaluation of the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool”
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1754-9493-7-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Unbeck, Kristina Schildmeijer, Peter Henriksson, Urban Jürgensen, Olav Muren, Lena Nilsson, Karin Pukk Härenstam

Abstract

There has been a theoretical debate as to which retrospective record review method is the most valid, reliable, cost efficient and feasible for detecting adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and capability of two common retrospective record review methods, the "Harvard Medical Practice Study" method and the "Global Trigger Tool" in detecting adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
Spain 2 5%
Germany 2 5%
Uruguay 1 2%
Unknown 34 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Student > Master 10 24%
Other 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 69%
Unspecified 4 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,065,274
of 8,208,063 outputs
Outputs from Patient Safety in Surgery
#42
of 146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,740
of 119,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Safety in Surgery
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,208,063 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 146 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 119,776 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.