↓ Skip to main content

The CUSUM chart method as a tool for continuous monitoring of clinical outcomes using routinely collected data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
The CUSUM chart method as a tool for continuous monitoring of clinical outcomes using routinely collected data
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, November 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-7-46
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thabani Sibanda, Nokuthaba Sibanda

Abstract

The lack of robust systems for monitoring quality in healthcare has been highlighted. Statistical process control (SPC) methods, utilizing the increasingly available routinely collected electronic patient records, could be used in creating surveillance systems that could lead to rapid detection of periods of deteriorating standards. We aimed to develop and test a CUmulative SUM (CUSUM) based surveillance system that could be used in continuous monitoring of clinical outcomes, using routinely collected data. The low Apgar score (5 minute Apgar score < 7) was used as an example outcome. A surveillance system based on the Observed minus Expected (O-E) as well as the 2-sided Log-Likelihood CUSUM charts was developed. The Log-Likelihood chart was designed to detect a 50% rise (deterioration) and halving (improvement) in the odds of low Apgar scores. Baseline rates were calculated from data for 2001 to 2004, and were used to monitor deliveries for 2005. Deliveries for nulliparous and multiparous women were monitored separately. All analyses were retrospective. The CUSUM system detected periods of increased rates of low Apgar scores for each of the nulliparous and multiparous cohorts. The overall rate for 2005 was eventually found to be 0.67%, which was higher than the baseline reference rate of 0.44% from 2001 to 2004. CUSUM methods can be used in continuous monitoring of clinical outcomes using routinely collected data. Used prospectively, they could lead to the prompt detection of periods of suboptimal standards.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Other 7 10%
Professor 5 7%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 39%
Computer Science 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Mathematics 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,582,522
of 23,122,481 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,108
of 2,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,226
of 78,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,122,481 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 78,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.