↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Validity of a hospital-based obstetric register using medical records as reference.

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Validity of a hospital-based obstetric register using medical records as reference.
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/clep.s93675
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carina Sjöberg Brixval, Lau Thygesen, Nanna Johansen, Christina Rørbye, Tom Weber, Pernille Due, Vibeke Koushede

Abstract

Data from hospital-based registers and medical records offer valuable sources of information for clinical and epidemiological research purposes. However, conducting high-quality epidemiological research requires valid and complete data sources. To assess completeness and validity of a hospital-based clinical register - the Obstetric Database - using a national register and medical records as references. We assessed completeness of a hospital-based clinical register - the Obstetric Database - by linking data from all women registered in the Obstetric Database as having given birth in 2013 to the National Patient Register with coverage of all births in 2013. Validity of eleven selected indicators from the Obstetric Database was assessed using medical records as a golden standard. Using a random sample of 250 medical records, we calculated proportion of agreement, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for each indicator. Two assessors independently reviewed medical records and inter-rater reliability was calculated as proportion of agreement and Cohen's κ coefficient. We found 100% completeness of the Obstetric Database when compared to the Danish National Patient Register. Except for one delivery all 6,717 deliveries were present in both registers. Proportion of agreement between the Obstetric Database and medical records ranged from 91.1% to 99.6% for the eleven indicators. The validity measures ranged from 0.70 to 1.00 indicating high validity of the Obstetric Database. κ coefficients from the inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.71 to 1.00. Completeness and validity of the Obstetric Database were found acceptable when using the National Patient Register and medical records as golden standards. The Obstetric Database therefore offers a valuable source for examining clinical, administrative, and research questions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 31%
Student > Master 3 19%
Researcher 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,037,310
of 6,738,406 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#83
of 193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,549
of 279,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#5
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,738,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 52nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 279,185 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 61% of its contemporaries.