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 |
Health state utility values for diabetic retinopathy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0006-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher J Sampson, Jonathan C Tosh, Christopher P Cheyne, Deborah Broadbent, Marilyn James |
| Abstract |
People with diabetic retinopathy tend to have lower levels of health-related quality of life than individuals with no retinopathy. Strategies for screening and treatment have been shown to be cost-effective. In order to reduce the bias in cost-effectiveness estimates, systematic reviews of health state utility values (HSUVs) are crucial for health technology assessment and the development of decision analytic models. A review and synthesis of HSUVs for the different stages of disease progression in diabetic retinopathy has not previously been conducted. We will conduct a systematic review of the available literature that reports HSUVs for people with diabetic retinopathy, in correspondence with current stage of disease progression and/or visual acuity. We will search Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database, and EconLit to identify relevant English-language articles. Data will subsequently be synthesized using linear mixed effects modeling meta-regression. Additionally, reported disease severity classifications will be mapped to a four-level grading scale for diabetic retinopathy. The systematic review and meta-analysis will provide important evidence for future model-based economic evaluations of technologies for diabetic retinopathy. The meta-regression will enable the estimation of utility values at different disease stages for patients with particular characteristics and will also highlight where the design of the study and HSUV instrument have influenced the reported utility values. We believe this protocol to be the first of its kind to be published. PROSPERO CRD42014012891. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 40% |
| Spain | 2 | 20% |
| Canada | 2 | 20% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 25% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 22% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 20 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,524,121
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#454
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,495
of 256,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 256,304 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.