↓ Skip to main content

Validity of algorithms for identifying five chronic conditions in MedicineInsight, an Australian national general practice database

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 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
Validity of algorithms for identifying five chronic conditions in MedicineInsight, an Australian national general practice database
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12913-021-06593-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alys Havard, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis, Jill Thistlethwaite, Benjamin Daniels, Rimma Myton, Karen Tu, Kendal Chidwick

Abstract

MedicineInsight is a database containing de-identified electronic health records (EHRs) from over 700 Australian general practices. It is one of the largest and most widely used primary health care EHR databases in Australia. This study examined the validity of algorithms that use information from various fields in the MedicineInsight data to indicate whether patients have specific health conditions. This study examined the validity of MedicineInsight algorithms for five common chronic conditions: anxiety, asthma, depression, osteoporosis and type 2 diabetes. Patients' disease status according to MedicineInsight algorithms was benchmarked against the recording of diagnoses in the original EHRs. Fifty general practices contributing data to MedicineInsight met the eligibility criteria regarding patient load and location. Five were randomly selected and four agreed to participate. Within each practice, 250 patients aged ≥ 40 years were randomly selected from the MedicineInsight database. Trained staff reviewed the original EHR for as many of the selected patients as possible within the time available for data collection in each practice. A total of 475 patients were included in the analysis. All the evaluated MedicineInsight algorithms had excellent specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (above 0.9) when benchmarked against the recording of diagnoses in the original EHR. The asthma and osteoporosis algorithms also had excellent sensitivity, while the algorithms for anxiety, depression and type 2 diabetes yielded sensitivities of 0.85, 0.89 and 0.89 respectively. The MedicineInsight algorithms for asthma and osteoporosis have excellent accuracy and the algorithms for anxiety, depression and type 2 diabetes have good accuracy. This study provides support for the use of these algorithms when using MedicineInsight data for primary health care quality improvement activities, research and health system policymaking and planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 18 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Psychology 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 21 58%
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 10 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,026,375
of 24,323,543 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,642
of 8,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,174
of 436,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#79
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,323,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 436,678 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.