↓ Skip to main content

The Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
Title
The Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40258-012-0006-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Kirisits, W. Ken Redekop

Abstract

The economic evaluation of medical technology has evolved as a key element in supporting health budget allocation decisions. Among suppliers of innovation, the medical device industry is one of the most dynamic fields of medical progress with thousands of new products marketed every year. Accordingly, the broad variety of technologies covered by the umbrella term 'medical devices' have come under increasing scrutiny regarding their cost effectiveness. In the process, a number of device-specific factors have become apparent, each of which can complicate a thorough economic evaluation and limit its informative value. Some of these factors relate to specific characteristics of device functioning. Examples of such factors include the fact that most technologies require, or form part of, a procedure and that many devices have multiple indications or purposes. Others in turn reflect external conditions and are more general in character, such as the regulatory framework that a medical device manufacturer faces prior to market approval and the structure of the medical device industry. Drawing on the available literature, these complicating factors and their practical implications are discussed and used as a basis to elaborate on the emerging challenges for the economic evaluation of medical devices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 128 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 36 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 19%
Engineering 17 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 6%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 38 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 January 2013.
All research outputs
#18,325,190
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#590
of 767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,938
of 280,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 280,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.