↓ Skip to main content

The cost-effectiveness of tracking newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in Bavaria: a decision-analytic model

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Title
The cost-effectiveness of tracking newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in Bavaria: a decision-analytic model
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-12-418
Pubmed ID
Authors

Astrid Langer, Inken Brockow, Uta Nennstiel-Ratzel, Petra Menn

Abstract

Although several countries, including Germany, have established newborn hearing screening programmes for early detection and treatment of newborns with hearing impairments, nationwide tracking systems for follow-up of newborns with positive test results until diagnosis of hearing impairment have often not been implemented. However, a recent study on universal newborn hearing screening in Bavaria showed that, in a high proportion of newborns, early diagnosis was only possible with the use of a tracking system. The aim of this study was, therefore, to assess the cost-effectiveness of tracking newborns with bilateral hearing impairment in Bavaria.

Twitter Demographics

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

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 %
Cuba 2 6%
Unknown 29 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 32%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 42%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Mathematics 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 2 6%

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 04 October 2013.
All research outputs
#9,905,864
of 12,372,945 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,413
of 4,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,116
of 258,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#296
of 382 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,945 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 258,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 382 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.