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 |
Use of the i2b2 research query tool to conduct a matched case–control clinical research study: advantages, disadvantages and methodological considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-14-16 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emilie K Johnson, Sarabeth Broder-Fingert, Pornthep Tanpowpong, Jonathan Bickel, Jenifer R Lightdale, Caleb P Nelson |
| Abstract |
A major aim of the i2b2 (informatics for integrating biology and the bedside) clinical data informatics framework aims to create an efficient structure within which patients can be identified for clinical and translational research projects.Our objective was to describe the respective roles of the i2b2 research query tool and the electronic medical record (EMR) in conducting a case-controlled clinical study at our institution. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 26% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 34% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Engineering | 4 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,924,963
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#462
of 2,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,586
of 307,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#4
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 307,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.