↓ Skip to main content

Codifying healthcare – big data and the issue of misclassification

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Codifying healthcare – big data and the issue of misclassification
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0165-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karim S. Ladha, Matthias Eikermann

Abstract

The rise of electronic medical records has led to a proliferation of large observational studies that examine the perioperative period. In contrast to randomized controlled trials, these studies have the ability to provide quick, cheap and easily obtainable information on a variety of patients and are reflective of everyday clinical practice. However, it is important to note that the data used in these studies are often generated for billing or documentation purposes such as insurance claims or the electronic anesthetic record. The reliance on codes to define diagnoses in these studies may lead to false inferences or conclusions. Researchers should specify the code assignment process and be aware of potential error sources when undertaking studies using secondary data sources. While misclassification may be a short-coming of using large databases, it does not prevent their use in conducting meaningful effectiveness research that has direct consequences on medical decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 21%
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 6 12%
Other 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Computer Science 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Engineering 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 December 2015.
All research outputs
#7,025,762
of 24,900,093 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#272
of 1,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,787
of 401,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,900,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,669 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 401,968 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.