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 |
Potential cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost ratios of adult pneumococcal vaccination in Germany
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Economics Review, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2191-1991-2-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander Kuhlmann, Ulrike Theidel, Mathias W Pletz, J-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg |
| Abstract |
Invasive (IPD, defined as detection of pneumococci in sterile body fluids like meningitis or bacteremic pneumonia) and non-invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae infections (i.e. non-bacteremic pneumonia, otitis media) in adults are associated with substantial morbidity, mortality and costs. In Germany, Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination (PPV23) is recommended for all persons >60 years and for defined risk groups (age 5-59). The aim of this model was to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost ratios of the adult vaccination program (18 years and older), considering the launch of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine for adults (PCV13). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Estonia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |
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 26 July 2012.
All research outputs
#18,310,549
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#332
of 421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,018
of 160,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 160,584 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.