The medication from prostatitis :: The total survey results of 2009 by the integrated assestment

The total survey results of 2009 by the integrated assestment in category

Gynecology, urology, nephrology / The medication from prostatitis

Integrated, “absolute” ratings is calculated by survey results of 3 respondent groups.

	Consumers (40%)
	Experts (40%)
	Celebrities (20%)

The Favorites of the Year is determined by the Consumers (non-indifferent public), Experts (authoritative specialists of this market industry) and Celebrities Jury (known public figures and celebrities).

In forming of the integrated ratings, the following weight is assumed:

Absolute rank = (average yearly rank of Consumers × 0.4) + (rank of Experts × 0.4) + (rank of Celebrities × 0.2).

1.		Простамол Уно (Berlin-Chemie Menarini)	5

2.		Вітапрост (Nizhpharm)	4.31

3.	4	Простамед (Dr. Gustav Klein)	2.20

4.	7	Простаплант (Schwabe)	2.07

5.	9	ПростаНорм (ФармВілар)	1.25

6.	5	Простапол (Farmak)	1.19

7.	8	Гарбеол (Київський вітамінний завод)	1.082

8.	10	Простатон (Національна гомеопатична спілка)	1.080

9.	11	Іхтіол (Nizhpharm)	0.819

10.	3	Хомвіо-Простан (Homviora Arzneimittel)	0.675

11.	12	Простагут (Schwabe)	0.580

12.	6	Афала (Materia Medica – Ukraine)	0.569

13.	12	Trianol (Sandoz)	0.464

14.		Медный всадник (Талион-А)	0.404

The competitor which has taken 1st place in this rating — is the best and the most successful Ukrainian medication of 2009 in the “The medication from prostatitis” category!

Using this rating is only possible with obligatory link to the source.

This rating was built as a result of the study of social preferences in 2009, under the “Favorites of Success” Contest in Ukraine and it’s the free information. In case of full or partial republishing of the information drawn from this rating, it is obligatory to mention the name of the “Favorites of Success” Contest in printed publications, or put an active hyperlink to this page in the electronic media.

Advanced reporting booklet about the study, including demographics of the respondents, by regional breakdown, information roll-call of ad hoc judges etc, can also be obtained from managers of the contest.