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 |
Validity of type 2 diabetes diagnosis in a population-based electronic health record database
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12911-017-0439-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Conchi Moreno-Iribas, Carmen Sayon-Orea, Josu Delfrade, Eva Ardanaz, Javier Gorricho, Rosana Burgui, Marian Nuin, Marcela Guevara |
| Abstract |
The increasing burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus makes the continuous surveillance of its prevalence and incidence advisable. Electronic health records (EHRs) have great potential for research and surveillance purposes; however the quality of their data must first be evaluated for fitness for use. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of type 2 diabetes diagnosis in a primary care EHR database covering more than half a million inhabitants, 97% of the population in Navarra, Spain. In the Navarra EPIC-InterAct study, the validity of the T90 code from the International Classification of Primary Care, Second Edition was studied in a primary care EHR database to identify incident cases of type 2 diabetes, using a multi-source approach as the gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and the kappa index were calculated. Additionally, type 2 diabetes prevalence from the EHR database was compared with estimations from a health survey. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of incident type 2 diabetes recorded in the EHRs were 98.2, 99.3, 92.2 and 99.8%, respectively, and the kappa index was 0.946. Overall prevalence of type 2 diabetes diagnosed in the EHRs among adults (35-84 years of age) was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.2-7.3) in men and 5.9% (95% CI 5.8-5.9) in women, which was similar to the prevalence estimated from the health survey: 8.5% (95% CI 7.1-9.8) and 5.5% (95% CI 4.4-6.6) in men and women, respectively. The high sensitivity and specificity of type 2 diabetes diagnosis found in the primary care EHRs make this database a good source for population-based surveillance of incident and prevalent type 2 diabetes, as well as for monitoring quality of care and health outcomes in diabetic patients. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Argentina | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Ghana | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 24 | 24% |
| Researcher | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 24% |
| Unspecified | 24 | 24% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 23% |
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 10 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,886,132
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,510
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,203
of 309,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#27
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 309,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.