| Title |
A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Second and Later Lines of Therapy for the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40258-012-0001-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Jäkel, Melanie Plested, Kuntal Dharamshi, Rakhee Modha, Sarah Bridge, Adam Johns |
| Abstract |
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Surgery is generally accepted as the first-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy as second-line treatments. Docetaxel or erlotinib are generally recommended as the first-line chemotherapy option. The objective of this review was to identify previously published economic evaluations in NSCLC for second- and later-line treatments in order to (i) determine common modelling approaches and (ii) establish the relative cost effectiveness of these treatments. An overview of model critique was also produced to identify common criticisms from health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on the models submitted. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 17% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 25 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 28% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 June 2023.
All research outputs
#7,496,019
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#350
of 778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,153
of 183,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 778 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 183,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them