↓ Skip to main content

Consensus Decision Models for Biologics in Rheumatoid and Psoriatic Arthritis: Recommendations of a Multidisciplinary Working Party

Overview of attention for article published in Rheumatology and Therapy, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Consensus Decision Models for Biologics in Rheumatoid and Psoriatic Arthritis: Recommendations of a Multidisciplinary Working Party
Published in
Rheumatology and Therapy, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40744-015-0020-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Madan, Tony Ades, Pelham Barton, Laura Bojke, Ernest Choy, Philip Helliwell, Paresh Jobanputra, Ken Stein, Andrew Stevens, Jonathan Tosh, Suzanne Verstappen, Allan Wailoo

Abstract

Biologic therapies are efficacious but costly. A number of health economic models have been developed to determine the most cost-effective way of using them in the treatment pathway. These models have produced conflicting results, driven by differences in assumptions, model structure, and data, which undermine the credibility of funding decisions based on modeling studies. A Consensus Working Party met to discuss recommendations and approaches for future models of biologic therapies. Our working party consisted of clinical specialists, modelers, and policy makers. Two 1-day meetings were held for members to arrive at consensus positions on model structure, assumptions, and appropriate data sources. These views were guided by clinical aspects of rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis and the principles of evidence-based medicine. Where opinions differed, we sought to identify a research agenda that would generate the evidence needed to reach consensus. We gained consensus in four areas of model development: initial response to treatment; long-term disease progression; lifetime costs and benefits; and model structure. Consensus was also achieved on some key parameters such as choices of outcome measures, methods for extrapolation beyond trial data, and treatment switching. A research agenda to support further consensus was also identified. Consensus guidance that fully reflects current evidence and clinical understanding was gained successfully. In addition, research needs have been identified. Such guidance can be updated as evidence develops and policy questions change and need not be prescriptive as long as deviations from consensus are clearly explained and justified. Arthritis Research UK and the UK Medical Research Council Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Master 4 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 30%
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 03 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,431,664
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology and Therapy
#332
of 475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,925
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology and Therapy
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 386,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.