| Title |
A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Models in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-015-0374-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Henriksson, Ramandeep Jindal, Catarina Sternhufvud, Klas Bergenheim, Elisabeth Sörstadius, Michael Willis |
| Abstract |
Critiques of cost-effectiveness modelling in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) are scarce and are often undertaken in combination with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) models. However, T1DM is a separate disease, and it is therefore important to appraise modelling methods in T1DM. This review identified published economic models in T1DM and provided an overview of the characteristics and capabilities of available models, thus enabling a discussion of best-practice modelling approaches in T1DM. A systematic review of Embase(®), MEDLINE(®), MEDLINE(®) In-Process, and NHS EED was conducted to identify available models in T1DM. Key conferences and health technology assessment (HTA) websites were also reviewed. The characteristics of each model (e.g. model structure, simulation method, handling of uncertainty, incorporation of treatment effect, data for risk equations, and validation procedures, based on information in the primary publication) were extracted, with a focus on model capabilities. We identified 13 unique models. Overall, the included studies varied greatly in scope as well as in the quality and quantity of information reported, but six of the models (Archimedes, CDM [Core Diabetes Model], CRC DES [Cardiff Research Consortium Discrete Event Simulation], DCCT [Diabetes Control and Complications Trial], Sheffield, and EAGLE [Economic Assessment of Glycaemic control and Long-term Effects of diabetes]) were the most rigorous and thoroughly reported. Most models were Markov based, and cohort and microsimulation methods were equally common. All of the more comprehensive models employed microsimulation methods. Model structure varied widely, with the more holistic models providing a comprehensive approach to microvascular and macrovascular events, as well as including adverse events. The majority of studies reported a lifetime horizon, used a payer perspective, and had the capability for sensitivity analysis. Several models have been developed that provide useful insight into T1DM modelling. Based on a review of the models identified in this study, we identified a set of 'best in class' methods for the different technical aspects of T1DM modelling. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 4% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 29% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 25 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,471,048
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#844
of 1,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,676
of 394,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#22
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 394,766 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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.