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 |
Economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema: a protocol for a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0262-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tracey Helen Sach, Emma McManus, Christopher Mcmonagle, Nick Levell |
| Abstract |
Eczema, synonymous with atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis, is a chronic skin disease that has a similar impact on health-related quality of life as other chronic diseases. The proposed research aims to provide a comprehensive systematic assessment of the economic evidence base available to inform economic modelling and decision making on interventions to prevent and treat eczema at any stage of the life course. Whilst the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database collects together the effectiveness evidence for eczema, there is currently no such systematic resource on the economics of eczema. It is important to gain an overview of the current state of the art of economic methods in the field of eczema in order to strengthen the economic evidence base further. The proposed study is a systematic review of the economic evidence surrounding interventions for the prevention and treatment of eczema. Relevant search terms will be used to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit, Scopus, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Web of Science in order to identify relevant evidence. To be eligible for inclusion studies will be primary empirical studies evaluating the cost, utility or full economic evaluation of interventions for preventing or treating eczema. Two reviewers will independently assess studies for eligibility and perform data abstraction. Evidence tables will be produced presenting details of study characteristics, costing methods, outcome methods and quality assessment. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using accepted checklists. The systematic review is being undertaken to identify the type of economic evidence available, summarise the results of the available economic evidence and critically appraise the quality of economic evidence currently available to inform future economic modelling and resource allocation decisions about interventions to prevent or treat eczema. We aim to use the review to offer guidance about how to gather economic evidence in studies of eczema and/or what further research is necessary in order to inform this. PROSPERO CRD42015024633. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Unknown | 29 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,779
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,826
of 353,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#32
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 353,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.