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 |
Coauthorship and Institutional Collaborations on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Network Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0038012 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ferrán Catalá-López, Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo, Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent, Manuel Ridao, Máxima Bolaños, Anna García-Altés, Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno, Salvador Peiró |
| Abstract |
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) has been promoted as an important research methodology for determining the efficiency of healthcare technology and guiding medical decision-making. Our aim was to characterize the collaborative patterns of CEA conducted over the past two decades in Spain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Comoros | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Greece | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Librarian | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 22% |
| Unknown | 26 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 08 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,059,751
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#26,276
of 193,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,660
of 165,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#419
of 3,748 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 165,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,748 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.