↓ Skip to main content

Review of Developments in Electronic, Clinical Data Collection, and Documentation Systems over the Last Decade – Are We Ready for Big Data in Routine Health Care?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Review of Developments in Electronic, Clinical Data Collection, and Documentation Systems over the Last Decade – Are We Ready for Big Data in Routine Health Care?
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00075
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerstin A. Kessel, Stephanie E. Combs

Abstract

Recently, information availability has become more elaborate and widespread, and treatment decisions are based on a multitude of factors, including imaging, molecular or pathological markers, surgical results, and patient's preference. In this context, the term "Big Data" evolved also in health care. The "hype" is heavily discussed in literature. In interdisciplinary medical specialties, such as radiation oncology, not only heterogeneous and voluminous amount of data must be evaluated but also spread in different styles across various information systems. Exactly this problem is also referred to in many ongoing discussions about Big Data - the "three V's": volume, velocity, and variety. We reviewed 895 articles extracted from the NCBI databases about current developments in electronic clinical data management systems and their further analysis or postprocessing procedures. Few articles show first ideas and ways to immediately make use of collected data, particularly imaging data. Many developments can be noticed in the field of clinical trial or analysis documentation, mobile devices for documentation, and genomics research. Using Big Data to advance medical research is definitely on the rise. Health care is perhaps the most comprehensive, important, and economically viable field of application.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 20%
Computer Science 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Engineering 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 18 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,547,499
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#2,141
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,331
of 315,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#18
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 315,018 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.