↓ Skip to main content

Validation of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnosis in computerized medical records in primary health care

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 69 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Professor 5 7%
Other 21 28%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 58%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 13 18%

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
#1,282,139
of 12,373,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#205
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,652
of 103,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#12
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 103,156 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.