↓ Skip to main content

Linked versus unlinked hospital discharge data on hip fractures for estimating incidence and comorbidity profiles

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Linked versus unlinked hospital discharge data on hip fractures for estimating incidence and comorbidity profiles
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Trang Vu, Lesley Day, Caroline F Finch

Abstract

Studies comparing internally linked (person-identifying) and unlinked (episodes of care) hospital discharge data (HDD) on hip fractures have mainly focused on incidence overestimation by unlinked HDD, but little is known about the impact of overestimation on patient profiles such as comorbidity estimates. In view of the continuing use of unlinked HDD in hip fracture research and the desire to apply research results to hip fracture prevention, we concurrently assessed the accuracy of both incidence and comorbidity estimates derived from unlinked HDD compared to those estimated from internally linked HDD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Other 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 24%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 5 17%

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 02 August 2013.
All research outputs
#8,180,787
of 14,700,241 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#863
of 1,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,697
of 131,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,700,241 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 131,595 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 51% 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