| Title |
After 20 Years of Using Economic Evaluation, Should NICE be Considered a Methods Innovator?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, January 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-019-00882-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark Sculpher, Stephen Palmer |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 | 15 | 33% |
| United States | 5 | 11% |
| Ireland | 3 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 12 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 67% |
| Scientists | 12 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 52% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 23 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,099,666
of 25,483,400 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#34
of 1,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,133
of 476,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,483,400 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 476,155 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.