↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Methods for Estimating Direct Costs of Adverse Drug Events

Overview of attention for article published in Value in Health (Elsevier Science), July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Comparing Methods for Estimating Direct Costs of Adverse Drug Events
Published in
Value in Health (Elsevier Science), July 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2017.06.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanna Gyllensten, Anna K. Jönsson, Katja M. Hakkarainen, Staffan Svensson, Staffan Hägg, Clas Rehnberg

Abstract

To estimate how direct health care costs resulting from adverse drug events (ADEs) and cost distribution are affected by methodological decisions regarding identification of ADEs, assigning relevant resource use to ADEs, and estimating costs for the assigned resources. ADEs were identified from medical records and diagnostic codes for a random sample of 4970 Swedish adults during a 3-month study period in 2008 and were assessed for causality. Results were compared for five cost evaluation methods, including different methods for identifying ADEs, assigning resource use to ADEs, and for estimating costs for the assigned resources (resource use method, proportion of registered cost method, unit cost method, diagnostic code method, and main diagnosis method). Different levels of causality for ADEs and ADEs' contribution to health care resource use were considered. Using the five methods, the maximum estimated overall direct health care costs resulting from ADEs ranged from Sk10,000 (Sk = Swedish krona; ~€1,500 in 2016 values) using the diagnostic code method to more than Sk3,000,000 (~€414,000) using the unit cost method in our study population. The most conservative definitions for ADEs' contribution to health care resource use and the causality of ADEs resulted in average costs per patient ranging from Sk0 using the diagnostic code method to Sk4066 (~€500) using the unit cost method. The estimated costs resulting from ADEs varied considerably depending on the methodological choices. The results indicate that costs for ADEs need to be identified through medical record review and by using detailed unit cost data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Other 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,715,753
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#803
of 4,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,050
of 327,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#16
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 327,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 70% of its contemporaries.