↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the completeness of coded and narrative data from the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset using injuries sustained during fitness activities as a case study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Assessing the completeness of coded and narrative data from the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset using injuries sustained during fitness activities as a case study
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12873-016-0091-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon E. Gray, Caroline F. Finch

Abstract

Injury surveillance systems support the ongoing systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of health information vital to the prevention, planning and evaluation of injury prevention strategies. One key measure of the success of such systems is their reliability. Data completeness is a major component of system reliability, and is an indicator of a system's data quality. The Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset (VEMD) is a state-wide record of injury presentations to emergency departments in Victoria, Australia. For each case, it provides information on the injury cause, place of occurrence, activity at time of injury, body region affected and nature of injury, as well as a free-text narrative of the injury event. The aim of this study was to assess the completeness of data in the VEMD using injuries sustained in fitness facilities as a case study. Analysis of VEMD coded parent injury variables (nature of injury, injured body region, cause of injury, place where injury occurred, activity at time of injury) and detailed narratives were reviewed for completeness over the ten-year period July 2003 to June 2012, inclusive. Narratives were text analysed manually to determine which items of injury information they contained and compared to the parent injury variables. There were 2936 identified cases related to injuries sustained during fitness activities. Two percent of cases had all coded injury variables unspecified. Overall, 95.8 % of narratives had at least one piece of injury information missing. The nature of injury and body region variables were coded in 92.6 and 96.6 % of cases, yet were only mentioned in 27.1 and 75.4 % of narratives, respectively. The cause variable was allocated a specified code in 47.7 % of cases and was mentioned in 45.9 % of narratives. The cause was missing in both in 42.8 % of cases. In approximately half of all cases, the activity and place were specified in both the coded injury variable and narrative; they were missing in both in 7.4 and 13.6 % of cases, respectively. The reliability of the VEMD as an injury surveillance system, varied depending on the injury variable being examined.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 5 24%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Sports and Recreations 2 10%
Decision Sciences 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,811,101
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#544
of 757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,556
of 354,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. 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 354,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.