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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of parenteral antimicrobials for acute melioidosis in Thailand
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1093/trstmh/trv002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Viriya Hantrakun, Wirongrong Chierakul, Ploenchan Chetchotisakd, Siriluck Anunnatsiri, Bart J. Currie, Sharon J. Peacock, Nicholas P. J. Day, Phaik Cheah, Direk Limmathurotsakul, Yoel Lubell |
| Abstract |
Melioidosis is a common community-acquired infectious disease in northeast Thailand associated with overall mortality of approximately 40% in hospitalized patients, and over 70% in severe cases. Ceftazidime is recommended for parenteral treatment in patients with suspected melioidosis. Meropenem is increasingly used but evidence to support this is lacking. A decision tree was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating non-severe and severe suspected acute melioidosis cases with either ceftazidime or meropenem. Empirical treatment with meropenem is likely to be cost-effective providing meropenem reduces mortality in severe cases by at least 9% and the proportion with subsequent culture-confirmed melioidosis is over 20%. In this context, treatment of severe cases with meropenem is likely to be cost-effective, while the evidence to support the use of meropenem in non-severe suspected melioidosis is not yet available. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 42% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene
#3,616
of 4,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,411
of 279,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 279,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.