↓ Skip to main content

Children and youth with ‘unspecified injury to the head’: implications for traumatic brain injury research and surveillance

Overview of attention for article published in Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Children and youth with ‘unspecified injury to the head’: implications for traumatic brain injury research and surveillance
Published in
Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12982-015-0031-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincy Chan, Robert E. Mann, Jason D. Pole, Angela Colantonio

Abstract

The case definition for traumatic brain injury (TBI) often includes 'unspecified injury to the head' diagnostic codes. However, research has shown that the inclusion of these codes leads to false positives. As such, it is important to determine the degree to which inclusion of these codes affect the overall numbers and profiles of the TBI population. The objective of this paper was to profile and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics, intention and mechanism of injury, and discharge disposition of hospitalized children and youth aged 19 years and under using (1) an inclusive TBI case definition that included 'unspecified injury to the head' diagnostic codes, (2) a restricted TBI case definition that excluded 'unspecified injury to the head 'diagnostic codes, and (3) the 'unspecified injury to the head' only case definition. The National Ambulatory Care Reporting System and the Discharge Abstract Database from Ontario, Canada, were used to identify cases between fiscal years 2003/04 and 2009/10. The rate of TBI episodes of care using the inclusive case definition for TBI (2,667.2 per 100,000) was 1.65 times higher than that of the restricted case definition (1,613.3 per 100,000). 'Unspecified injury to the head' diagnostic codes made up of 39.5 % of all cases identified with the inclusive case definition. Exclusion of 'unspecified injury to the head' diagnostic code in the TBI case definition resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients in the intensive care units (p < .0001; 18.5 % vs. 22.2 %) and discharged to a non-home setting (p < .0001; 9.9 % vs. 11.6 %). Inclusion of 'unspecified injury to the head' diagnostic codes resulted in significant changes in numbers, healthcare use, and causes of TBI. Careful consideration of the inclusion of 'unspecified injury to the head' diagnostic codes in the case definition of TBI for the children and youth population is important, as it has implications for the numbers used for policy, resource allocation, prevention, and planning of healthcare services. This paper can inform future work on reaching consensus on the diagnostic codes for defining TBI in children and youth.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 28%
Student > Master 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 44%
Psychology 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 5 14%

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 24 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,797,421
of 5,273,580 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#52
of 76 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,023
of 186,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Themes in Epidemiology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,273,580 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 76 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 186,182 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.