↓ Skip to main content

Cost-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy versus U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended drugs and usual care in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia: an economic evaluation alongside…

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, October 2014
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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
18 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 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-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy versus U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended drugs and usual care in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia: an economic evaluation alongside a 6-month randomized controlled trial
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13075-014-0451-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan V Luciano, Francesco D’Amico, Marta Cerdà-Lafont, María T Peñarrubia-María, Martin Knapp, Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas, Antoni Serrano-Blanco, Javier García-Campayo

Abstract

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended pharmacologic treatments (RPTs; pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran) are effective treatment options for fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome and are currently recommended by clinical guidelines. We compared the cost-utility from the healthcare and societal perspectives of CBT versus RPT (combination of pregabalin + duloxetine) and usual care (TAU) groups in the treatment of FM.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 188 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Master 25 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Other 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 45 23%
Unknown 47 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 21%
Psychology 32 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 53 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,931,519
of 21,321,525 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#359
of 2,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,591
of 225,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#4
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,525 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 225,305 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 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.