↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a systematic review of methods and cost-effectiveness findings of economic evaluations of obesity prevention and/or treatment interventions in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Protocol for a systematic review of methods and cost-effectiveness findings of economic evaluations of obesity prevention and/or treatment interventions in children and adolescents
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0718-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mandana Zanganeh, Peymane Adab, Bai Li, Emma Frew

Abstract

Childhood obesity is a major global public health problem, with governments increasingly having to undertake various strategies to reduce excess weight in their populations. Considering the increasing number of well-conducted intervention studies in the field of childhood obesity prevention, there are relatively few published economic evaluations. The proposed systematic review will explore the methods of these economic evaluations, examine the limitations and establish the evidence base for cost-effectiveness analyses. Systematic review methodology will be applied to identify, select and extract data from published economic evaluation studies (trial-based, non-trial based, simulation-based, decision model and trial based model economic evaluations) of obesity prevention and/or treatment interventions in children and adolescents. A systematic literature search will be conducted using bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry). The review will only include full economic evaluations. There will be no restrictions based on language, perspective, follow-up duration, sample size, country or setting. To minimise selection bias, translation of non-English language articles will be undertaken. The quality of included studies will be assessed. Following data extraction, a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies will be undertaken. Subgroup analysis will be considered where deemed appropriate. The findings from this review, which will include primary studies, will provide evidence to assist health policy decision makers interpret economic evaluations in this field. In addition, we will identify gaps in the current literature to inform future-related research. Prospero CRD42017062236.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 30 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 34 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,597,360
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#654
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,551
of 328,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 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 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 328,955 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 51% of its contemporaries.