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 |
Cost-effectiveness analysis for clinicians
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-10-10 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suzanne R Hill |
| Abstract |
In a climate of economic uncertainty, cost effectiveness analysis is a potentially important tool for making choices about health care interventions. Methods for such analyses are well established, but the results need to be interpreted carefully and are subject to bias. Making decisions based on results of cost-effectiveness analyses can involve setting thresholds, but for individual patients, there needs to be disaggregation of benefits and harms included in a quality adjusted life year to ensure appropriate consideration of benefits and harms as well as personal preferences and circumstances. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 2 | 40% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 20% |
| Researcher | 21 | 18% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 29 | 25% |
| Unknown | 14 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 47% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 January 2017.
All research outputs
#13,128,189
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,756
of 3,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,678
of 247,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#24
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 247,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.