| Title |
Value‐based Care in the Management of Spinal Disorders: A Systematic Review of Cost‐utility Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-011-2141-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Santoshi S. Indrakanti, Michael H. Weber, Steven K. Takemoto, Serena S. Hu, David Polly, Sigurd H. Berven |
| Abstract |
Spinal disorders are a major cause of disability and compromise in health-related quality of life. The direct and indirect costs of treating spinal disorders are estimated at more than $100 billion per year. With limited resources, the cost-utility of interventions is important for allocating resources. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 164 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 14% |
| Researcher | 19 | 11% |
| Other | 15 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 35 | 21% |
| Unknown | 35 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 59 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 16% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Unknown | 40 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 01 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,061,560
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#544
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,701
of 173,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#11
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 173,052 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.