↓ Skip to main content

The cost-effectiveness of preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 183)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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
The cost-effectiveness of preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-9-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mira Johri, Denis Ako-Arrey

Abstract

Although highly effective prevention interventions exist, the epidemic of paediatric HIV continues to challenge control efforts in resource-limited settings. We reviewed the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This article presents syntheses of evidence on the costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of HIV MTCT strategies for LMICs from the published literature and evaluates their implications for policy and future research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 122 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 19%
Researcher 23 17%
Student > Postgraduate 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 6 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 41%
Social Sciences 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 10 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 06 November 2015.
All research outputs
#1,183,544
of 11,744,727 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#14
of 183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,003
of 109,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,744,727 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 183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 109,779 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.