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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 Comparisons and Methodological Heterogeneity in Cost-of-illness Studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical care, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182726c13 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alan J. Ó Céilleachair, Paul Hanly, Máiréad Skally, Ciaran O’Neill, Patricia Fitzpatrick, Kanika Kapur, Anthony Staines, Linda Sharp |
| Abstract |
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide with over 1 million new cases diagnosed each year. Advances in treatment and survival are likely to have increased lifetime costs of managing the disease. Cost-of-illness (COI) studies are key building blocks in economic evaluations of interventions and comparative effectiveness research. We systematically reviewed and critiqued the COI literature on CRC. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 20% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 23% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 18% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 34% |
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 29 May 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Medical care
#3,520
of 4,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,561
of 212,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical care
#36
of 58 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 4,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 212,991 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 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.