↓ Skip to main content

Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-83
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian Shemilt, David McDaid, Kevin Marsh, Catherine Henderson, Evelina Bertranou, Jacqueline Mallander, Mike Drummond, Miranda Mugford, Luke Vale

Abstract

Methods for systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions have focused mainly on addressing the question of 'What works?' or 'Is this intervention effective in achieving one or more specific outcomes?' Addressing the question 'Is it worth it given the resources available?' has received less attention. This latter question can be addressed by applying an economic lens to the systematic review process.This paper reflects on the value and desire for the consideration by end users for coverage of an economic perspective in a Cochrane review and outlines two potential approaches and future directions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
Netherlands 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 40 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 30%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 16%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 June 2016.
All research outputs
#5,138,181
of 21,347,849 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#900
of 1,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,059
of 185,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,848 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 185,725 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them