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 Clinically Driven versus Routine Laboratory Monitoring of Antiretroviral Therapy in Uganda and Zimbabwe
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0033672 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Antonieta Medina Lara, Jesse Kigozi, Jovita Amurwon, Lazarus Muchabaiwa, Barbara Nyanzi Wakaholi, Ruben E. Mujica Mota, A. Sarah Walker, Ronnie Kasirye, Francis Ssali, Andrew Reid, Heiner Grosskurth, Abdel G. Babiker, Cissy Kityo, Elly Katabira, Paula Munderi, Peter Mugyenyi, James Hakim, Janet Darbyshire, Diana M. Gibb, Charles F. Gilks |
Abstract |
Despite funding constraints for treatment programmes in Africa, the costs and economic consequences of routine laboratory monitoring for efficacy and toxicity of antiretroviral therapy (ART) have rarely been evaluated. |
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 % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 1% |
Sweden | 1 | 1% |
Germany | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 93 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 20 | 21% |
Student > Master | 19 | 20% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 17% |
Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 3% |
Other | 18 | 19% |
Unknown | 13 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 26% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 7% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 6% |
Other | 20 | 21% |
Unknown | 21 | 22% |
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 18 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,625,670
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#44,872
of 193,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,558
of 163,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#761
of 3,747 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 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 193,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 163,198 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,747 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.