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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Does introduction of a Patient Data Management System (PDMS) improve the financial situation of an intensive care unit?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-13-107 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ixchel Castellanos, Jürgen Schüttler, Hans-Ulrich Prokosch, Thomas Bürkle |
| Abstract |
Patient Data Management Systems (PDMS) support clinical documentation at the bedside and have demonstrated effects on completeness of patient charting and the time spent on documentation. These systems are costly and raise the question if such a major investment pays off. We tried to answer the following questions: How do costs and revenues of an intensive care unit develop before and after introduction of a PDMS? Can higher revenues be obtained with improved PDMS documentation? Can we present cost savings attributable to the PDMS? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 September 2013.
All research outputs
#14,633,585
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,212
of 1,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,335
of 179,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#27
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,982 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 179,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.