| Title |
Resource Utilization in Clubfoot Management
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-008-0674-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew A. Halanski, JenChen Huang, Stewart J. Walsh, Haemish A. Crawford |
| Abstract |
Both private and socialized healthcare systems require treatments to be not only effective, but also cost-efficient. Although the Ponseti method of clubfoot treatment is effective, its cost-effectiveness has not been demonstrated. We compared the difference in resource use between two prospective cohorts treated for clubfoot by either the Ponseti method or below-knee casting followed by primary surgical release in the socialized healthcare system of New Zealand. Using these cohorts and US billing data, costs of treating these cohorts in the US healthcare system were also calculated. Treatment of initial deformity, recurrences, and complications in both cohorts were included in the final assessment. Twenty-six patients (40 feet) were enrolled in the Ponseti cohort and 29 (46 feet) in the primary surgical cohort. For most patients, the Ponseti method was more cost-effective than the primary surgical treatment in both healthcare systems. The cost of treating both cohorts was lower in the socialized system than in the US healthcare system. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ukraine | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 17% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,863,839
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#497
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,378
of 186,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 186,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.