↓ Skip to main content

Designing an optimal screening program for unknown atrial fibrillation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Overview of attention for article published in Europace, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Designing an optimal screening program for unknown atrial fibrillation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Published in
Europace, March 2017
DOI 10.1093/europace/eux002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mattias Aronsson, Emma Svennberg, Mårten Rosenqvist, Johan Engdahl, Faris Al-Khalili, Leif Friberg, Viveka Frykman, Lars-Åke Levin

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to use computer simulations to suggest an optimal age for initiation of screening for unknown atrial fibrillation and to evaluate if repeated screening will add value. In the absence of relevant clinical studies, this analysis was based on a simulation model. More than two billion different designs of screening programs for unknown atrial fibrillation were simulated and analysed. Data from the published scientific literature and registries were used to construct the model and estimate lifelong effects and costs. Costs and effects generated by 2 147 483 648 different screening designs were calculated and compared. Program designs that implied worse clinical outcome and were less cost-effective compared to other programs were excluded from the analysis. Seven program designs were identified, and considered to be cost effective depending on what the health-care decision makers are ready to pay for gaining a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Screening at the age of 75 implied the lowest cost per gained QALY (€4 800/QALY). In conclusion, examining the results of more than two billion simulated screening program designs for unknown atrial fibrillation, seven designs were deemed cost-effective depending on how much we are prepared to pay for gaining QALYs. Our results showed that repeated screening for atrial fibrillation implied additional health benefits to a reasonable cost compared to one-off screening.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Other 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Unspecified 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 16%
Engineering 3 12%
Computer Science 2 8%
Unspecified 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 March 2017.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Europace
#2,172
of 3,093 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,388
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Europace
#23
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,093 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 324,443 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.