| Title |
Event detection using population-based health care databases in randomized clinical trials: a novel research tool in interventional cardiology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s44651 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leif Thuesen, Lisette Jensen, Hans Henrik Tilsted, Maeng, Christian Terkelsen, Per Thayssen, Jan Ravkilde, Evald Høj Christiansen, Hans Erik Bøtker, Morten Madsen, Lassen |
| Abstract |
To describe a new research tool, designed to reflect routine clinical practice and relying on population-based health care databases to detect clinical events in randomized clinical trials. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 33% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
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 22 September 2013.
All research outputs
#12,689,877
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#327
of 711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,931
of 200,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 200,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.