↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

How do patients with diabetes report their comorbidity? Comparison with administrative data

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
How do patients with diabetes report their comorbidity? Comparison with administrative data
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/clep.s135872
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonas Hoffmann, Burkhard Haastert, Manuela Brüne, Matthias Kaltheuner, Alexander Begun, Nadja Chernyak, Andrea Icks

Abstract

Patients with diabetes are probably often unaware of their comorbidities. We estimated agreement between self-reported comorbidities and administrative data. In a random sample of 464 diabetes patients, data from a questionnaire asking about the presence of 14 comorbidities closely related to diabetes were individually linked with statutory health insurance data. Specificities were >97%, except cardiac insufficiency (94.5%), eye diseases (93.8%), peripheral arterial disease (92.6%), hypertension (90.9%), and peripheral neuropathy (85.8%). Sensitivities were <60%, except amputation (100%), hypertension (83.1%), and myocardial infarction (67.2%). A few positive predictive values were >90% (hypertension, myocardial infarction, and eye disease), and six were below 70%. Six negative predictive values were >90%, and two <70% (hypertension and eye disease). Total agreement was between 42.7% (eye disease) and 100% (dialysis and amputation). Overall, substantial agreement was observed for three morbidities (kappa 0.61-0.80: hypertension, myocardial infarction, and amputation). Moderate agreement (kappa 0.41-0.60) was estimated for angina pectoris, heart failure, stroke, peripheral neuropathy, and kidney disease. Factors associated with agreement were the number of comorbidities, diabetes duration, age, sex, and education. Myocardial infarction and amputation were well reported by patients as comorbidities; eye diseases and foot ulceration rather poorly, particularly in older, male, or less educated patients. Patient information needs improving.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Other 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 14 47%
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 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#12,782,275
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#337
of 727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,739
of 330,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. 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 330,201 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.