↓ Skip to main content

Direct risk standardisation: a new method for comparing casemix adjusted event rates using complex models

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Direct risk standardisation: a new method for comparing casemix adjusted event rates using complex models
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-13-133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jon Nicholl, Richard M Jacques, Michael J Campbell

Abstract

Comparison of outcomes between populations or centres may be confounded by any casemix differences and standardisation is carried out to avoid this. However, when the casemix adjustment models are large and complex, direct standardisation has been described as "practically impossible", and indirect standardisation may lead to unfair comparisons. We propose a new method of directly standardising for risk rather than standardising for casemix which overcomes these problems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 3 11%
Professor 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 48%
Mathematics 3 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 3 11%

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 02 September 2014.
All research outputs
#13,339,580
of 21,352,585 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,311
of 1,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,769
of 209,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#76
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,352,585 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 209,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.