| Title |
Inclusion of the benefits of enhanced cross-protection against cervical cancer and prevention of genital warts in the cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Netherlands
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-13-75 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tjalke A Westra, Irina Stirbu-Wagner, Sara Dorsman, Eric D Tutuhatunewa, Edwin L de Vrij, Hans W Nijman, Toos Daemen, Jan C Wilschut, Maarten J Postma |
| Abstract |
Infection with HPV 16 and 18, the major causative agents of cervical cancer, can be prevented through vaccination with a bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine. Both vaccines provide cross-protection against HPV-types not included in the vaccines. In particular, the bivalent vaccine provides additional protection against HPV 31, 33, and 45 and the quadrivalent vaccine against HPV31. The quadrivalent vaccine additionally protects against low-risk HPV type 6 and 11, responsible for most cases of genital warts. In this study, we made an analytical comparison of the two vaccines in terms of cost-effectiveness including the additional benefits of cross-protection and protection against genital warts in comparison with a screening-only strategy. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 23% |
| Researcher | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 28% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 33 | 30% |
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 02 March 2013.
All research outputs
#13,144,960
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,145
of 7,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,952
of 282,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#60
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 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 7,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 282,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 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 58% of its contemporaries.