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 |
Validity of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding for dengue infections in hospital discharge records in Malaysia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-018-3104-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yuan-Liang Woon, Keng-Yee Lee, Siti Fatimah Zahra Mohd Anuar, Pik-Pin Goh, Teck-Onn Lim |
| Abstract |
Hospitalization due to dengue illness is an important measure of dengue morbidity. However, limited studies are based on administrative database because the validity of the diagnosis codes is unknown. We validated the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD) diagnosis coding for dengue infections in the Malaysian Ministry of Health's (MOH) hospital discharge database. This validation study involves retrospective review of available hospital discharge records and hand-search medical records for years 2010 and 2013. We randomly selected 3219 hospital discharge records coded with dengue and non-dengue infections as their discharge diagnoses from the national hospital discharge database. We then randomly sampled 216 and 144 records for patients with and without codes for dengue respectively, in keeping with their relative frequency in the MOH database, for chart review. The ICD codes for dengue were validated against lab-based diagnostic standard (NS1 or IgM). The ICD-10-CM codes for dengue had a sensitivity of 94%, modest specificity of 83%, positive predictive value of 87% and negative predictive value 92%. These results were stable between 2010 and 2013. However, its specificity decreased substantially when patients manifested with bleeding or low platelet count. The diagnostic performance of the ICD codes for dengue in the MOH's hospital discharge database is adequate for use in health services research on dengue. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
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 22 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,388,641
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,143
of 7,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,746
of 326,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#147
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 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 7,719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 326,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.