| Title |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of a non-contrast screening MRI protocol for vestibular schwannoma in patients with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroradiology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00234-017-1859-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew G. Crowson, Daniel J. Rocke, Jenny K. Hoang, Jane L. Weissman, David M. Kaylie |
| Abstract |
We aimed to determine if a non-contrast screening MRI is cost-effective compared to a full MRI protocol with contrast for the evaluation of vestibular schwannomas. A decision tree was constructed to evaluate full MRI and screening MRI strategies for patients with asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss. If a patient were to have a positive screening MRI, s/he received a full MRI. Vestibular schwannoma prevalence, MRI specificity and sensitivity, and gadolinium anaphylaxis incidence were obtained through literature review. Institutional charge data were obtained using representative patient cohorts. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were completed to determine CE model threshold points for MRI performance characteristics and charges. The mean charge for a full MRI with contrast was significantly higher than a screening MRI ($4089 ± 1086 versus $2872 ± 741; p < 0.05). The screening MRI protocol was more cost-effective than a full MRI protocol with a willingness-to-pay from $0 to 20,000 USD. Sensitivity analyses determined that the screening protocol dominated when the screening MRI charge was less than $4678, and the imaging specificity exceeded 78.2%. The screening MRI protocol also dominated when vestibular schwannoma prevalence was varied between 0 and 1000 in 10,000 people. A screening MRI protocol is more cost-effective than a full MRI with contrast in the diagnostic evaluation of a vestibular schwannoma. A screening MRI likely also confers benefits of shorter exam time and no contrast use. Further investigation is needed to confirm the relative performance of screening protocols for vestibular schwannomas. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |
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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,068,665
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Neuroradiology
#633
of 1,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,877
of 291,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroradiology
#5
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,398 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 291,513 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 73% of its contemporaries.