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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
System Dynamics to Model the Unintended Consequences of Denying Payment for Venous Thromboembolism after Total Knee Arthroplasty
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0030578 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mathias Worni, Ricardo Pietrobon, Guilherme Roberto Zammar, Jatin Shah, Bryan Yoo, Mauro Maldonato, Steven Takemoto, Thomas P. Vail |
| Abstract |
The Hospital Acquired Condition Strategy (HACS) denies payment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The intention is to reduce complications and associated costs, while improving the quality of care by mandating VTE prophylaxis. We applied a system dynamics model to estimate the impact of HACS on VTE rates, and potential unintended consequences such as increased rates of bleeding and infection and decreased access for patients who might benefit from TKA. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
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 28 June 2013.
All research outputs
#15,274,055
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,179
of 193,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,902
of 161,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,369
of 3,708 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 161,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,708 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.