↓ Skip to main content

Results from evaluations of models and cost-effectiveness tools to support introduction decisions for new vaccines need critical appraisal

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Results from evaluations of models and cost-effectiveness tools to support introduction decisions for new vaccines need critical appraisal
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-9-55
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raymond Hutubessy, Ana Maria Henao, Pem Namgyal, Vasee Moorthy, Joachim Hombach

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that the cost-effectiveness (CE) of introducing new vaccines be considered before such a programme is implemented. However, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), it is often challenging to perform and interpret the results of model-based economic appraisals of vaccines that benefit from locally relevant data. As a result, WHO embarked on a series of consultations to assess economic analytical tools to support vaccine introduction decisions for pneumococcal, rotavirus and human papillomavirus vaccines. The objectives of these assessments are to provide decision makers with a menu of existing CE tools for vaccines and their characteristics rather than to endorse the use of a single tool. The outcome will provide policy makers in LMICs with information about the feasibility of applying these models to inform their own decision making. We argue that if models and CE analyses are used to inform decisions, they ought to be critically appraised beforehand, including a transparent evaluation of their structure, assumptions and data sources (in isolation or in comparison to similar tools), so that decision makers can use them while being fully aware of their robustness and limitations.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Bangladesh 1 1%
Unknown 66 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 37%
Student > Master 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 39%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 13%
Mathematics 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Other 14 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#912,141
of 8,079,148 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#887
of 1,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,650
of 119,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#50
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,079,148 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 119,025 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.