↓ Skip to main content

The peculiar economics of life-extending therapies: a review of costing methods in health economic evaluations in oncology

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
The peculiar economics of life-extending therapies: a review of costing methods in health economic evaluations in oncology
Published in
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1586/14737167.2015.1102633
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalia Olchanski, Yue Zhong, Joshua T. Cohen, Cayla Saret, Mohan Bala, Peter J. Neumann

Abstract

Published literature lacks consensus, and most guidelines lack definitive recommendations as to whether cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) should include all "future" costs or distinguish between related and unrelated medical costs. This systematic review of oncology CEAs evaluated cost methods used and the impact on the cost-effectiveness of incorporating different cost categories, including costs due to study intervention, related medical costs of the treated condition, and unrelated medical costs. Of the 59 studies reviewed, none included medical costs unrelated to the treated condition and 14 studies (32%) excluded direct medical costs related to the condition but not the evaluated intervention. Recomputing ICERs using different cost categories altered overall cost-effectiveness conclusions. The authors propose conventional CEA methods may implicitly penalize therapies that add "expensive" life years for chronically ill patients. Presenting ICERs computed with and without disease-attributable costs can help better convey how much the treatment itself contributes to overall costs.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 36%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,517,312
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
#440
of 765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,343
of 295,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 295,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.