| Title |
Systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of heart valve implantations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10198-017-0880-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simone A. Huygens, Johanna. J. M. Takkenberg, Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken |
| Abstract |
To review the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of heart valve implantations generated by decision analytic models and to assess their methodological quality. A systematic review was performed including model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of heart valve implantations. Study and model characteristics and cost-effectiveness results were extracted and the methodological quality was assessed using the Philips checklist. Fourteen decision-analytic models regarding the cost-effectiveness of heart valve implantations were identified. In most studies transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was cost-effective compared to standard treatment (ST) in inoperable or high-risk operable patients (ICER range 18,421-120,779 €) and in all studies surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was cost-effective compared to ST in operable patients (ICER range 14,108-40,944 €), but the results were not consistent on the cost-effectiveness of TAVI versus SAVR in high-risk operable patients (ICER range: dominant to dominated by SAVR). Mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) had the lowest costs per success compared to mitral valve repair and biological MVR. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate to good. This review showed that improvements can be made in the description and justification of methods and data sources, sensitivity analysis on extrapolation of results, subgroup analyses, consideration of methodological and structural uncertainty, and consistency (i.e. validity) of the models. There are several opportunities for future decision-analytic models of the cost-effectiveness of heart valve implantations: considering heart valve implantations in other valve positions besides the aortic valve, using a societal perspective, and developing patient-simulation models to investigate the impact of patient characteristics on outcomes. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 20% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 27% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
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 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,762,278
of 25,508,813 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#1,043
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,836
of 324,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,508,813 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 324,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.