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 |
Comparison of clinical knowledge management capabilities of commercially-available and leading internally-developed electronic health records
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-11-13 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dean F Sittig, Adam Wright, Seth Meltzer, Linas Simonaitis, R Scott Evans, W Paul Nichol, Joan S Ash, Blackford Middleton |
| Abstract |
We have carried out an extensive qualitative research program focused on the barriers and facilitators to successful adoption and use of various features of advanced, state-of-the-art electronic health records (EHRs) within large, academic, teaching facilities with long-standing EHR research and development programs. We have recently begun investigating smaller, community hospitals and out-patient clinics that rely on commercially-available EHRs. We sought to assess whether the current generation of commercially-available EHRs are capable of providing the clinical knowledge management features, functions, tools, and techniques required to deliver and maintain the clinical decision support (CDS) interventions required to support the recently defined "meaningful use" criteria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 148 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 18% |
| Researcher | 17 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 36 | 23% |
| Unknown | 21 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 30% |
| Computer Science | 31 | 19% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 12 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 August 2013.
All research outputs
#18,342,133
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,565
of 1,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,420
of 105,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,982 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 105,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.