| Title |
Validation of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnosis in computerized medical records in primary health care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-11-146 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carmen de Burgos-Lunar, Miguel A Salinero-Fort, Juan Cárdenas-Valladolid, Sonia Soto-Díaz, Carmen Y Fuentes-Rodríguez, Juan C Abánades-Herranz, Isabel del Cura-González |
| Abstract |
Computerized Clinical Records, which are incorporated in primary health care practice, have great potential for research. In order to use this information, data quality and reliability must be assessed to prevent compromising the validity of the results.The aim of this study is to validate the diagnosis of hypertension and diabetes mellitus in the computerized clinical records of primary health care, taking the diagnosis criteria established in the most prominently used clinical guidelines as the gold standard against which what measure the sensitivity, specificity, and determine the predictive values.The gold standard for diabetes mellitus was the diagnostic criteria established in 2003 American Diabetes Association Consensus Statement for diabetic subjects. The gold standard for hypertension was the diagnostic criteria established in the Joint National Committee published in 2003. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 117 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 21 | 17% |
| Researcher | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 24% |
| Unknown | 19 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 21 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 27 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 27 December 2011.
All research outputs
#2,897,098
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#453
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,168
of 140,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 140,785 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.