↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of parenteral antimicrobials for acute melioidosis in Thailand: Figure 1.

Overview of attention for article published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Cost-effectiveness analysis of parenteral antimicrobials for acute melioidosis in Thailand: Figure 1.
Published in
Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, May 2015
DOI 10.1093/trstmh/trv002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Viriya Hantrakun, Wirongrong Chierakul, Ploenchan Chetchotisakd, Siriluck Anunnatsiri, Bart J. Currie, Sharon J. Peacock, Nicholas P. J. Day, Phaik Cheah, Direk Limmathurotsakul, Yoel Lubell

Abstract

Melioidosis is a common community-acquired infectious disease in northeast Thailand associated with overall mortality of approximately 40% in hospitalized patients, and over 70% in severe cases. Ceftazidime is recommended for parenteral treatment in patients with suspected melioidosis. Meropenem is increasingly used but evidence to support this is lacking. A decision tree was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating non-severe and severe suspected acute melioidosis cases with either ceftazidime or meropenem. Empirical treatment with meropenem is likely to be cost-effective providing meropenem reduces mortality in severe cases by at least 9% and the proportion with subsequent culture-confirmed melioidosis is over 20%. In this context, treatment of severe cases with meropenem is likely to be cost-effective, while the evidence to support the use of meropenem in non-severe suspected melioidosis is not yet available.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Linguistics 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%

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 12 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,811,065
of 19,211,930 outputs
Outputs from Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene
#3,293
of 3,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,893
of 241,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,211,930 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 241,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.