| Title |
Cost-Effectiveness of Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Tests for Respiratory Tract Infection in Primary Care in England
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Therapy, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12325-015-0180-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachael Hunter |
| Abstract |
Despite recommendations that general practitioners (GPs) delay antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), antibiotic prescriptions in primary care in England increased by 4.1% from 2010 to 2013. C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care tests (POCT), for example, the Afinion™ Analyzer (Alere Ltd, Stockport, UK) device, are widely used in several countries in the European Union. Studies suggest that CRP POCT use, either alone or in combination with communication training, reduces antibiotic prescribing and improves quality of life for patients presenting with RTI symptoms. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CRP POCT for RTIs in primary care in England over 3 years for three different strategies of care compared to standard practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 139 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 18% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 29 | 21% |
| Unknown | 30 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 16 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,563,964
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Therapy
#318
of 2,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,960
of 352,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Therapy
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 352,883 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.