↓ Skip to main content

Coauthorship and Institutional Collaborations on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Network Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, May 2012
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 4%
United States 2 3%
Greece 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 65 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 19%
Librarian 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 19%
Social Sciences 13 18%
Computer Science 7 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 20 27%

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
#737,502
of 10,768,289 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#14,175
of 124,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,821
of 103,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#306
of 2,987 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,768,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124,886 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 103,405 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,987 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.