↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 45%
Mathematics 4 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 September 2014.
All research outputs
#16,433,113
of 24,208,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,608
of 2,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,014
of 217,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#24
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,208,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 217,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.