↓ Skip to main content

A Practical Guide to Value of Information Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, October 2014
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
A Practical Guide to Value of Information Analysis
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40273-014-0219-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward C. F. Wilson

Abstract

Value of information analysis is a quantitative method to estimate the return on investment in proposed research projects. It can be used in a number of ways. Funders of research may find it useful to rank projects in terms of the expected return on investment from a variety of competing projects. Alternatively, trialists can use the principles to identify the efficient sample size of a proposed study as an alternative to traditional power calculations, and finally, a value of information analysis can be conducted alongside an economic evaluation as a quantitative adjunct to the 'future research' or 'next steps' section of a study write up. The purpose of this paper is to present a brief introduction to the methods, a step-by-step guide to calculation and a discussion of issues that arise in their application to healthcare decision making. Worked examples are provided in the accompanying online appendices as Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 96 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 26%
Student > Master 17 17%
Researcher 14 14%
Unspecified 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 23%
Unspecified 17 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 10%
Decision Sciences 7 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 40 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,386,946
of 13,868,365 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#123
of 1,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,660
of 232,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,868,365 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 232,470 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.