↓ Skip to main content

Identification of Key Cost Generating Events for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Lung, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Identification of Key Cost Generating Events for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Systematic Review
Published in
Lung, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00408-016-9960-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shalvaree Vaidya, Clare L. Hibbert, Elizabeth Kinter, Stefan Boes

Abstract

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an incurable, debilitating disease which impairs lung function and eventually leads to death. Currently, there is a lack of effective modifying therapies and treatments for IPF as the underlying epidemiological mechanism is not clearly understood. This leads to difficulty in diagnosing and managing IPF, which results in a high incurment of disease-associated cost. Even though IPF poses a substantial economic burden, there is a lack of research available on cost triggers and healthcare utilization, which can be a barrier to future economic evaluations of new medicines for IPF. We aimed to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify the key cost-generating events of IPF and to gather any related costing information. The data showed that the main events triggering high resource use in patients were the symptoms of IPF progression along with comorbidities and lung transplantations. These events result in a high economic impact through the use of medications, health care professionals, and hospital stays. More research is needed to identify the direct, and indirect, relationships between IPF events and the costs they generate. This would help to further evaluate the area of need for future health technologies and to understand what events should be targeted to reduce the global economic burden of IPF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 19 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 20 48%
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 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,395,259
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Lung
#559
of 885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,980
of 415,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lung
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 885 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 415,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.