↓ Skip to main content

Cost analysis of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis among patients with haematological disorders in Germany and Spain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Cost analysis of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B for primary therapy of invasive aspergillosis among patients with haematological disorders in Germany and Spain
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/2050-6511-15-52
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helmut Ostermann, Carlos Solano, Isidro Jarque, Carolina Garcia-Vidal, Xin Gao, Jon Andoni Barrueta, Marina De Salas-Cansado, Jennifer Stephens, Mei Xue, Bertram Weber, Claudie Charbonneau

Abstract

The current healthcare climate demands pharmacoeconomic evaluations for different treatment strategies incorporating drug acquisition costs, costs incurred for hospitalisation, drug administration and preparation, diagnostic and laboratory testing and drug-related adverse events (AEs). Here we evaluate the pharmacoeconomics of voriconazole versus liposomal amphotericin B as first-line therapies for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with haematological malignancy and prolonged neutropenia or who were undergoing haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in Germany or Spain.

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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 3 6%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 August 2021.
All research outputs
#6,942,562
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#122
of 439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,865
of 252,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 252,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.