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 a National Neonatal Hearing Screening Program in China: Conditions for the Scale-Up
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0051990 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruoyan Gai Tobe, Rintaro Mori, Lihui Huang, Lingzhong Xu, Demin Han, Kenji Shibuya |
| Abstract |
In 2009, the Chinese Ministry of Health recommended scale-up of routine neonatal hearing screening - previously performed primarily only in select urban hospitals - throughout the entire country. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cuba | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 69 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 27% |
| Unknown | 13 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 January 2017.
All research outputs
#14,742,867
of 22,693,205 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#123,067
of 193,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,833
of 284,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,861
of 4,841 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,693,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 284,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,841 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.