| Title |
Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Interventions for Osteoporosis: Issues to Consider
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-014-0156-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matt D. Stevenson, Peter L. Selby |
| Abstract |
Expenditure on treating osteoporotic fractures and on preventative intervention is considerable and is likely to rise in forthcoming years due to the association between fracture risk and age. With funders such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee explicitly considering cost-effectiveness analyses within the process of producing guidance, it is imperative that economic models are as robust as possible. This article details issues that need to be considered specifically related to health technology assessments of interventions for osteoporosis, and highlights limitations within the current evidence base. A likely direction of impact on cost effectiveness of addressing the key issues has been included alongside a tentative categorization of the level of these impacts. It is likely that cost-effectiveness ratios presented in previous models that did not address the identified issues were favourable to interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 34% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
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 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,719,424
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,570
of 1,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,835
of 228,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#24
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 228,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.