↓ Skip to main content

Critical appraisal of health-state utility values used in breast cancer-related cost–utility analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, May 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
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Critical appraisal of health-state utility values used in breast cancer-related cost–utility analyses
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10549-017-4283-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Virginie Nerich, Sopany Saing, Eva-Maria Gamper, Bernhard Holzner, Xavier Pivot, Rosalie Viney, Georg Kemmler

Abstract

To review the data sources of health-state utility values (HSUVs), as well as their elicitation and use, in 140 breast cancer-related cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and to provide a critical appraisal of these. A checklist was developed to guide the process of the critical appraisal. It is divided into three parts: the data source (three questions), elicitation method (four questions), and use (ten questions) of HSUVs in CUAs. Two independent reviewers performed the data extraction. A consensus was reached in case of disagreements. Data sources were categorized as "original study," "derived from the literature," or "other." The data source of HSUVs was always specified. When HSUVs were derived from the literature (90% of cases), the authors referred to a median number of two references as data sources. The critical appraisal of the elicitation of HSUVs in CUAs revealed considerable variability in terms of the quality of the reporting of the data source selection of HSUV. More details were provided by authors when HSUVs were elicited from an original study rather than derived from the literature. The use of HSUVs elicited from an original study was generally better described in terms of the checklist than were those derived from the literature. Based on the developed checklist, we were able to highlight the challenges that authors are facing when trying to adequately report HSUV used in CUAs. Our proposed checklist offers a good starting point for encouraging more explicit and comprehensive reporting of HSUVs in CUAs.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Other 5 17%
Lecturer 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Psychology 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,476,814
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#2,918
of 4,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,580
of 310,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#48
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 310,860 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 107 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.