↓ Skip to main content

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40273-013-0063-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel P. Thompson, Amir Abdolahi, Katia Noyes

Abstract

Several cost-effectiveness models of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) have been developed for different populations and different countries. Vast differences in the approaches and discrepancies in the results give rise to heated discussions and limit the use of these models. Our main objective is to discuss the methodological challenges in modelling the cost effectiveness of treatments for MS. We conducted a review of published models to describe the approaches taken to date, to identify the key parameters that influence the cost effectiveness of DMTs, and to point out major areas of weakness and uncertainty. Thirty-six published models and analyses were identified. The greatest source of uncertainty is the absence of head-to-head randomized clinical trials. Modellers have used various techniques to compensate, including utilizing extension trials. The use of large observational cohorts in recent studies aids in identifying population-based, 'real-world' treatment effects. Major drivers of results include the time horizon modelled and DMT acquisition costs. Model endpoints must target either policy makers (using cost-utility analysis) or clinicians (conducting cost-effectiveness analyses). Lastly, the cost effectiveness of DMTs outside North America and Europe is currently unknown, with the lack of country-specific data as the major limiting factor. We suggest that limited data should not preclude analyses, as models may be built and updated in the future as data become available. Disclosure of modelling methods and assumptions could improve the transferability and applicability of models designed to reflect different healthcare systems.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Turkey 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 50 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 21%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 17%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,999,684
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#545
of 1,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,254
of 194,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#7
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 194,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.