↓ Skip to main content

Good Practice Guidelines for the use of Statistical Regression Models in Economic Evaluations

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Good Practice Guidelines for the use of Statistical Regression Models in Economic Evaluations
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40273-013-0069-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Kearns, Roberta Ara, Allan Wailoo, Andrea Manca, Monica Hernández Alava, Keith Abrams, Mike Campbell

Abstract

Decision-analytic models (DAMs) used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of interventions are pivotal sources of evidence used in economic evaluations. Parameter estimates used in the DAMs are often based on the results of a regression analysis, but there is little guidance relating to these. This study had two objectives. The first was to identify the frequency of use of regression models in economic evaluations, the parameters they inform, and the amount of information reported to describe and support the analyses. The second objective was to provide guidance to improve practice in this area, based on the review. The review concentrated on a random sample of economic evaluations submitted to the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of its technology appraisal process. Based on these findings, recommendations for good practice were drafted, together with a checklist for critiquing reporting standards in this area. Based on the results of this review, statistical regression models are in widespread use in DAMs used to support economic evaluations, yet reporting of basic information, such as the sample size used and measures of uncertainty, is limited. Recommendations were formed about how reporting standards could be improved to better meet the needs of decision makers. These recommendations are summarised in a checklist, which may be used by both those conducting regression analyses and those critiquing them, to identify what should be reported when using the results of a regression analysis within a DAM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 5%
United States 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 55 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Student > Master 7 12%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 32%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 12 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,939,340
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#126
of 1,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,113
of 197,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,880 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 197,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.