↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review protocol for measuring comorbidity in inpatient rehabilitation for non-traumatic brain injury

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
A systematic review protocol for measuring comorbidity in inpatient rehabilitation for non-traumatic brain injury
Published in
Systematic Reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-4-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wayne Khuu, Vincy Chan, Angela Colantonio

Abstract

Comorbidity can affect health-care utilization and outcomes, and the results and interpretation of risk adjustment studies that attempt to predict rehabilitation utilization and outcomes are influenced by the choice of comorbidity measurement. Although the identification of an appropriate measurement has been conducted in some populations and outcomes, this information is currently lacking for the non-traumatic brain injury (nTBI) population in inpatient rehabilitation settings. As such, this is a systematic review protocol to survey the methods used to measure comorbidities in the rehabilitation setting for patients with nTBI.Methods/design: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments will be systematically searched using the concepts 'nTBI,' 'comorbidity,' and 'rehabilitation.' Grey matters and the reference list of eligible articles will also be searched. Study selection will be performed independently by two reviewers based on predetermined eligibility criteria through two rounds of screening using, first, the title and abstract, followed by full-text. Extracted information will include study purpose, design, and setting; data source and type; outcomes variables; statistical methods; comorbidity measurement method, rationale, justification, or validation; and results involving comorbidity. The data will be tabulated and narratively synthesized. Meta-analyses will be performed if appropriate.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Psychology 3 11%
Computer Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 January 2015.
All research outputs
#2,815,010
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#523
of 1,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,446
of 353,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#16
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 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 1,993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 353,560 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.