↓ Skip to main content

Biologicals and small molecules in psoriasis: A systematic review of economic evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Biologicals and small molecules in psoriasis: A systematic review of economic evaluations
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0189765
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Kromer, Daniel Celis, Diana Sonntag, Wiebke K. Peitsch

Abstract

Biological therapy for moderate-to-severe psoriasis is highly effective but cost-intensive. This systematic review aimed at analyzing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of biological treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. A literature search was conducted until 30/06/2017 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and EconLit. The quality of identified studies was assessed with the checklist by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance. Out of 482 records, 53 publications were eligible for inclusion. Half of the studies met between 20 and 25 of the quality checklist items, displaying moderate quality. Due to heterogeneity of studies, a qualitative synthesis was conducted. Cost ranges per outcome were enormous across different studies due to diversity in assumptions and model design. Pairwise comparisons of biologicals revealed conflicting results. Overall, adalimumab appeared to be most cost-effective (100% of all aggregated pairwise comparisons), followed by ustekinumab (66.7%), and infliximab (60%). However, in study conclusions most recent publications favored secukinumab and apremilast (75% and 60% of the studies investigating these medications). Accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds varied between 30,000 and 50,000 USD/Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Three-quarters of studies were financially supported, and in 90% of those, results were consistent with the funder's interest. Economic evaluation of biologicals is crucial for responsible allocation of health care resources. In addition to summarizing the actual evidence this review highlights gaps and needs for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Professor 2 3%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 21 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 24 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,487,739
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#132,342
of 196,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,047
of 442,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,313
of 3,503 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 442,518 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,503 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.