You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Growth and Quality of the Cost–Utility Literature, 1976–2001
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Value in Health (Elsevier Science), January 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04010.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter J. Neumann, Dan Greenberg, Natalia V. Olchanski, Patricia W. Stone, Allison B. Rosen |
| Abstract |
Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) have become increasingly popular, although questions persist about their comparability and credibility. Our objectives were to: 1) describe the growth and characteristics of CUAs published in the peer-reviewed literature through 2001; 2) investigate whether CUA quality has improved over time; 3) examine whether quality varies by the experience of journals in publishing CUAs, or the source of external funding for study investigators; and 4) examine changes in practices in US-based studies following recommendations of the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (USPCEHM). This study updates and expands our previous work, which examined CUAs through 1997. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 21% |
| Researcher | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 29% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 10 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 26 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 07 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,655,838
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#419
of 4,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,782
of 151,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#1
of 7 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 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 151,229 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them