↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of a cost-effective strategy to prevent neonatal early-onset group B haemolytic streptococcus disease in the Netherlands

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
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.
Title
Implementation of a cost-effective strategy to prevent neonatal early-onset group B haemolytic streptococcus disease in the Netherlands
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2393-13-155
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diny GE Kolkman, Marlies EB Rijnders, Maurice GAJ Wouters, M Elske van den Akker-van Marle, CPB Kitty van der Ploeg, Christianne JM de Groot, Margot AH Fleuren

Abstract

Early-onset Group B haemolytic streptococcus infection (EOGBS) is an important cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality in the first week of life. Primary prevention of EOGBS is possible with intra-partum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP.) Different prevention strategies are used internationally based on identifying pregnant women at risk, either by screening for GBS colonisation and/or by identifying risk factors for EOGBS in pregnancy or labour. A theoretical cost-effectiveness study has shown that a strategy with IAP based on five risk factors (risk-based strategy) or based on a positive screening test in combination with one or more risk factors (combination strategy) was the most cost-effective approach in the Netherlands. IAP for all pregnant women with a positive culture in pregnancy (screening strategy) and treatment in line with the current Dutch guideline (IAP after establishing a positive culture in case of pre-labour rupture of membranes or preterm birth and immediate IAP in case of intra-partum fever, previous sibling with EOGBS or GBS bacteriuria), were not cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness was based on the assumption of 100% adherence to each strategy. However, adherence in daily practice will be lower and therefore have an effect on cost-effectiveness.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 84 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Lecturer 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 20 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 September 2013.
All research outputs
#18,345,822
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#3,450
of 4,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,552
of 198,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#38
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 198,195 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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.