| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Cuba | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 46 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 7 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 24% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
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
#13,268,931
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,522
of 7,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,865
of 169,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#66
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 169,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.