You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The cost-effectiveness of tracking newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in Bavaria: a decision-analytic model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6963-12-418 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Astrid Langer, Inken Brockow, Uta Nennstiel-Ratzel, Petra Menn |
| Abstract |
Although several countries, including Germany, have established newborn hearing screening programmes for early detection and treatment of newborns with hearing impairments, nationwide tracking systems for follow-up of newborns with positive test results until diagnosis of hearing impairment have often not been implemented. However, a recent study on universal newborn hearing screening in Bavaria showed that, in a high proportion of newborns, early diagnosis was only possible with the use of a tracking system. The aim of this study was, therefore, to assess the cost-effectiveness of tracking newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in Bavaria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cuba | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 33 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 34% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 40% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,174,175
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#7,059
of 7,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,642
of 275,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#119
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 275,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.