↓ Skip to main content

Incidence of adverse events in an integrated US healthcare system: a retrospective observational study of 82,784 surgical hospitalizations

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Safety in Surgery, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 250)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Incidence of adverse events in an integrated US healthcare system: a retrospective observational study of 82,784 surgical hospitalizations
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1754-9493-8-23
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muhammad F Zeeshan, Allard E Dembe, Eric E Seiber, Bo Lu

Abstract

Many health care facilities have developed electronic reporting systems for identifying and reporting adverse events (AEs), so that measures can be taken to improve patient safety. Although several studies have examined AEs in surgical settings, there has not previously been a systematic assessment of the variations in adverse event rates among different types of surgery, nor an identification of the particular types of AEs that are most common within each surgical category. Additionally, this study will identify the AE severity level associated with each of the AE category types.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 20%
Engineering 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 03 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,635,554
of 25,257,066 outputs
Outputs from Patient Safety in Surgery
#23
of 250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,809
of 233,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Safety in Surgery
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,257,066 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 233,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.