↓ Skip to main content

Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Specific guidelines for assessing and improving the methodological quality of economic evaluations of newborn screening
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-12-300
Pubmed ID
Authors

Astrid Langer, Rolf Holle, Jürgen John

Abstract

Economic evaluation of newborn screening poses specific methodological challenges. Amongst others, these challenges refer to the use of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in newborns, and which costs and outcomes need to be considered in a full evaluation of newborn screening programmes. Because of the increasing scale and scope of such programmes, a better understanding of the methods of high-quality economic evaluations may be crucial for both producers/authors and consumers/reviewers of newborn screening-related economic evaluations. The aim of this study was therefore to develop specific guidelines designed to assess and improve the methodological quality of economic evaluations in newborn screening.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Cuba 2 5%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Lecturer 4 10%
Other 12 29%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 36%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Mathematics 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 13 31%
Unknown 3 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 September 2012.
All research outputs
#8,430,149
of 15,467,277 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,093
of 5,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,146
of 133,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,467,277 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 133,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them