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 |
HERALD (Health Economics using Routine Anonymised Linked Data)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6947-12-24 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Muhammad J Husain, Sinead Brophy, Steven Macey, Leila M Pinder, Mark D Atkinson, Roxanne Cooksey, Ceri J Phillips, Stefan Siebert |
| Abstract |
Health economic analysis traditionally relies on patient derived questionnaire data, routine datasets, and outcomes data from experimental randomised control trials and other clinical studies, which are generally used as stand-alone datasets. Herein, we outline the potential implications of linking these datasets to give one single joined up data-resource for health economic analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 40% |
| Hungary | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 29 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 May 2012.
All research outputs
#4,570,950
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#416
of 1,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,766
of 160,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#8
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,978 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 160,407 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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.