↓ Skip to main content

Finding “truth” across different data sources

Overview of attention for article published in Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

7 tweeters

Readers on

22 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.
Finding “truth” across different data sources
Published in
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13584-017-0138-3
Pubmed ID

Alison Rein, Lisa A. Simpson


The proliferation of new technology platforms and tools is dramatically advancing our ability to capture, integrate and use clinical and other health related data for research and care. Another critical and increasingly common source of data comes directly from patients - often in the form of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO). As more providers and payers recognize that patient experiences reflect a critical dimension of the value proposition, these data are informing broader strategies to achieve performance improvement and accountability in health systems. Combined with other traditional (e.g., claims) and more recent (e.g., Electronic Health Record) data assets, PROs can help to examine experiences and outcomes that convey a more complete picture of both individual and population health. One of the areas of research where this is most evident is cancer survivorship, including long-term adverse effects, as the population of survivors is increasing given advances in detection and treatment. Key questions remain as to how and under what conditions these new data resources can be used for research, and which are the best "sources of truth" for specific types of information. A recent IJHPR validation study by Hamood et al. reflects important progress in this regard, and establishes the necessary groundwork for a larger planned study. There are some important limitations worth noting, such as a small sample size (which does not support adequate subgroup analysis); a relatively narrow focus on women with only early stage or regionally advanced breast cancer; and a limited focus on outcomes that are primarily clinical and relatively severe in nature (e.g., cardiovascular disease). Finally, as use of EHRs becomes ubiquitous, as patient perspectives and outcome measures are considered, and as more types of data are systematically collected via electronic systems, further comparison and validation of non-clinical data elements captured via such tools will become increasingly possible and important. This will further enhance the capacity of cancer survivorship researchers to address a broader range of important questions to many more types of patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 18%
Social Sciences 3 14%
Psychology 2 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 9%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 March 2017.
All research outputs
of 14,089,795 outputs
Outputs from Israel Journal of Health Policy Research
of 389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 263,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Israel Journal of Health Policy Research
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,089,795 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 389 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 263,683 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them