↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Evaluation of data completeness in the electronic health record for the purpose of patient recruitment into clinical trials: a retrospective analysis of element presence

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Evaluation of data completeness in the electronic health record for the purpose of patient recruitment into clinical trials: a retrospective analysis of element presence
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-37
Pubmed ID
23514203
Authors

Felix Köpcke, Benjamin Trinczek, Raphael W Majeed, Björn Schreiweis, Joachim Wenk, Thomas Leusch, Thomas Ganslandt, Christian Ohmann, Björn Bergh, Rainer Röhrig, Martin Dugas, Hans-Ulrich Prokosch

Abstract

Computerized clinical trial recruitment support is one promising field for the application of routine care data for clinical research. The primary task here is to compare the eligibility criteria defined in trial protocols with patient data contained in the electronic health record (EHR). To avoid the implementation of different patient definitions in multi-site trials, all participating research sites should use similar patient data from the EHR. Knowledge of the EHR data elements which are commonly available from most EHRs is required to be able to define a common set of criteria. The objective of this research is to determine for five tertiary care providers the extent of available data compared with the eligibility criteria of randomly selected clinical trials.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 154 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 19%
Student > Master 29 18%
Researcher 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 16 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 28%
Computer Science 37 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Engineering 7 4%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 21 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 November 2020.
All research outputs
#10,816,983
of 19,486,479 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#809
of 1,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,119
of 168,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,486,479 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 1,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 168,200 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 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.

This page is provided by Altmetric.