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 |
Algorithm for analysis of administrative pediatric cancer hospitalization data according to indication for admission
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-14-88 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heidi V Russell, M Fatih Okcu, Kala Kamdar, Mona D Shah, Eugene Kim, J Michael Swint, Wenyaw Chan, Xianglin L Du, Luisa Franzini, Vivian Ho |
| Abstract |
Childhood cancer relies heavily on inpatient hospital services to deliver tumor-directed therapy and manage toxicities. Hospitalizations have increased over the past decade, though not uniformly across childhood cancer diagnoses. Analysis of the reasons for admission of children with cancer could enhance comparison of resource use between cancers, and allow clinical practice data to be interpreted more readily. Such comparisons using nationwide data sources are difficult because of numerous subdivisions in the International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification (ICD-9) system and inherent complexities of treatments. This study aimed to develop a systematic approach to classifying cancer-related admissions in administrative data into categories that reflected clinical practice and predicted resource use. |
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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 13 | 34% |
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 08 October 2014.
All research outputs
#17,728,060
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,498
of 1,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,733
of 253,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#20
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,984 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 253,597 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 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.