↓ Skip to main content

The utility of medico-legal databases for public health research: a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications using the National Coronial Information System

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
The utility of medico-legal databases for public health research: a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications using the National Coronial Information System
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0096-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lyndal Bugeja, Joseph E. Ibrahim, Noha Ferrah, Briony Murphy, Melissa Willoughby, David Ranson

Abstract

Medico-legal death investigations are a recognised data source for public health endeavours and its accessibility has increased following the development of electronic data systems. Despite time and cost savings, the strengths and limitations of this method and impact on research findings remain untested. This study examines this issue using the National Coronial Information System (NCIS). PubMed, ProQuest and Informit were searched to identify publications where the NCIS was used as a data source for research published during the period 2000-2014. A descriptive analysis was performed to describe the frequency and characteristics of the publications identified. A content analysis was performed to identify the nature and impact of strengths and limitations of the NCIS as reported by researchers. Of the 106 publications included, 30 reported strengths and limitations, 37 reported limitations only, seven reported strengths only and 32 reported neither. The impact of the reported strengths of the NCIS was described in 14 publications, whilst 46 publications discussed the impacts of limitations. The NCIS was reported to be a reliable source of quality, detailed information with comprehensive coverage of deaths of interest, making it a powerful injury surveillance tool. Despite these strengths, researchers reported that open cases and missing information created the potential for selection and reporting biases and may preclude the identification and control of confounders. To ensure research results are valid and inform health policy, it is essential to consider and seek to overcome the limitations of data sources that may have an impact on results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 21 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,887,431
of 24,225,722 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#985
of 1,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,320
of 305,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#22
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,225,722 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 305,382 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 52% 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 is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.