↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Burden of Celiac Disease

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Burden of Celiac Disease
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40273-018-0707-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth S. Mearns, Aliki Taylor, Talia Boulanger, Kelly J. Craig, Michele Gerber, Daniel A. Leffler, Jennifer Drahos, David S. Sanders, Benjamin Lebwohl

Abstract

The prevalence of celiac disease (CD) has rapidly increased over recent decades, but costs related to CD remain poorly quantified. This systematic review assessed the economic burden of CD in North America and Europe. MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify English-language literature from 2007 to 2018 that assessed costs, cost effectiveness, and health resource utilization for CD. Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 28 (57.1%) addressed costs of testing and diagnosis; 33 (67.3%) were from Europe. The cost per positive CD diagnosis of testing patients already undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy for other indications ranged from 1300 Canadian dollars ($Can) in Canada (2016 value) to €44,712 in the Netherlands (2013 value). Adding the CD test was cost effective when it combined diagnostic modalities (e.g., serology and biopsy). Direct annual excess costs to a US payer per diagnosed CD patient totaled $US6000 (2013 value) more than for a person without CD, chiefly due to outpatient care. Hospitalizations, emergency visits, and medication use were more common with CD. After initiating a gluten-free diet (GFD), patients visited primary care providers less often, used more medications, and missed fewer days from school and work. Most of the few available economic studies of CD assess testing and diagnosis costs, especially in Europe. Methods of testing generally are considered cost effective when they combine diagnostic modalities in symptomatic patients. Most costs to a payer of managing CD derive from outpatient care. Following GFD initiation, patients lose fewer days from work and school than pretreatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 35 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 35 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 July 2023.
All research outputs
#6,322,078
of 24,072,790 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#753
of 1,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,774
of 344,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#16
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,072,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 344,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 50% of its contemporaries.