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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reliability of medical record abstraction by non-physicians for orthopedic research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-14-181 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Y Mi, Jamie E Collins, Vladislav Lerner, Elena Losina, Jeffrey N Katz |
| Abstract |
Medical record review (MRR) is one of the most commonly used research methods in clinical studies because it provides rich clinical detail. However, because MRR involves subjective interpretation of information found in the medical record, it is critically important to understand the reproducibility of data obtained from MRR. Furthermore, because medical record review is both technically demanding and time intensive, it is important to establish whether trained research staff with no clinical training can abstract medical records reliably. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 38% |
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 11 June 2013.
All research outputs
#12,684,440
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,671
of 4,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,977
of 197,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#37
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 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 4,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 197,509 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.