↓ Skip to main content

AIMING FOR THE BULL'S EYE

Overview of attention for article published in Retina, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
AIMING FOR THE BULL'S EYE
Published in
Retina, October 2016
DOI 10.1097/iae.0000000000001235
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Throughout medicine, the cost of various treatments has been increasingly studied with the result that certain management guidelines might be reevaluated in their context. Cost-utility is a term referring to the expense of preventing the loss of quality of life, quantified in dollars per quality-adjusted life year. In 2002, the American Academy of Ophthalmology published hydroxychloroquine screening recommendations which were revised in 2011. The purpose of this report is to estimate the cost-utility of these recommendations. A hypothetical care model of screening for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy was formulated. The costs of screening components were calculated using 2016 Medicare fee schedules from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The cost-utility of screening for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy with the 2011 American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines was found to vary from 33,155 to 344,172 dollars per quality-adjusted life year depending on the type and number of objective screening tests chosen, practice setting, and the duration of hydroxychloroquine use. Screening had a more favorable cost-utility when the more sensitive and specific diagnostics were used, and for patients with an increased risk of toxicity. American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines have a wide-ranging cost-utility. Prudent clinical judgment of risk stratification and tests chosen is necessary to optimize cost-utility without compromising the efficacy of screening.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 26%
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Retina
#2,480
of 3,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,462
of 332,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Retina
#48
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 332,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.