↓ Skip to main content

On the alert: future priorities for alerts in clinical decision support for computerized physician order entry identified from a European workshop

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
On the alert: future priorities for alerts in clinical decision support for computerized physician order entry identified from a European workshop
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-13-111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie J Coleman, Heleen van der Sijs, Walter E Haefeli, Sarah P Slight, Sarah E McDowell, Hanna M Seidling, Birgit Eiermann, Jos Aarts, Elske Ammenwerth, Robin E Ferner, Ann Slee

Abstract

Clinical decision support (CDS) for electronic prescribing systems (computerized physician order entry) should help prescribers in the safe and rational use of medicines. However, the best ways to alert users to unsafe or irrational prescribing are uncertain. Specifically, CDS systems may generate too many alerts, producing unwelcome distractions for prescribers, or too few alerts running the risk of overlooking possible harms. Obtaining the right balance of alerting to adequately improve patient safety should be a priority.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Austria 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 88 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 19%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Postgraduate 11 11%
Professor 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 38%
Computer Science 15 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 16 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 October 2013.
All research outputs
#6,724,998
of 12,409,138 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#580
of 1,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,764
of 161,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#13
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,409,138 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 1,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 161,975 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.