| Title |
A protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluation studies conducted on neonatal systemic infections in South Asia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0648-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shruti Murthy, Denny John, Isadora Perpetual Godinho, Myron Anthony Godinho, Vasudeva Guddattu, N. Sreekumaran Nair |
| Abstract |
Neonatal systemic infections and their consequent impairments give rise to long-lasting health, economic and social effects on the neonate, the family and the nation. Considering the dearth of consolidated economic evidence in this important area, this systematic review aims to critically appraise and consolidate the evidence on economic evaluations of management of neonatal systemic infections in South Asia. Full and partial economic evaluations, published in English, associated with the management of neonatal systemic infections in South Asia will be included. Any intervention related to management of neonatal systemic infections will be eligible for inclusion. Comparison can include a placebo or alternative standard of care. Interventions without any comparators will also be eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of this review will include measures related to resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness. Electronic searches will be conducted on PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, EconLit, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Library (CRD) Database, Popline, IndMed, MedKnow, IMSEAR, the Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry and Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE). Conference proceedings and grey literature will be searched in addition to performing back referencing of bibliographies of included studies. Two authors will independently screen studies (in title, abstract and full-text stages), extract data and assess risk of bias. A narrative summary and tables will be used to summarize the characteristics and results of included studies. Neonatal systemic infections can have significant economic repercussions on the families, health care providers and, cumulatively, the nation. Pediatric economic evaluations have focused on the under-five age group, and published consolidated economic evidence for neonates is missing in the developing world context. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review of economic evidence on neonatal systemic infections in the South Asian context. Further, this protocol provides an underst anding of the methods used to design and evaluate economic evidence for methodological quality, transparency and focus on health equity. This review will also highlight existing gaps in research and identify scope for further research. PROSPERO CRD42017047275. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Thailand | 2 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| India | 2 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,778,885
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#934
of 2,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,821
of 441,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#28
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,025 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 441,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 52% of its contemporaries.