↓ Skip to main content

VibraTip™ for Testing Vibration Perception to Detect Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, June 2015
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
VibraTip™ for Testing Vibration Perception to Detect Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40258-015-0181-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iain Willits, Helen Cole, Roseanne Jones, Paul Dimmock, Mick Arber, Joyce Craig, Andrew Sims

Abstract

VibraTip™ was selected by the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) to undergo evaluation through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). VibraTip™ provides a vibratory stimulus for the purpose of detecting diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus, and is intended to replace the current practice of using the 128 Hz tuning fork or 10 g monofilament (comparators). The sponsor (McCallan Medical) provided clinical and economic submissions which were evaluated by an External Assessment Centre (EAC). Of six diagnostic studies identified, the EAC considered that only one was directly relevant to the assessment. This study indicated VibraTip™ had a sensitivity of 0.79 (95 % CI 0.69-0.90) and specificity of 0.82 (95 % CI 0.74-0.90) for DPN using a neurothesiometer at 25 V as a reference standard. This was non-inferior to the comparators, but the sample size (n = 141) was too small to draw unequivocal conclusions and it is unclear how generalisable results were to clinical practice. The sponsor presented a de facto cost-minimisation model that in the base case showed minimal cost savings and, in sensitivity analysis which assumed diagnostic superiority of VibraTip™, showed large savings. The EAC appraised this model and concluded it was flawed as it was not evidence based and costs were likely to be unrealistic. The MTAC considered that the technology showed promise but decided the case for adoption was not proven, and therefore made a research recommendation as is reflected in NICE Medical Technology Guidance 22.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Engineering 6 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Unspecified 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 17 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 August 2017.
All research outputs
#5,349,778
of 25,093,754 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#243
of 836 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,625
of 269,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,093,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 836 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 269,865 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 19 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 63% of its contemporaries.