↓ Skip to main content

Early Assessment of the Likely Cost Effectiveness of Single-Use Flexible Video Bronchoscopes

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics - Open, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Early Assessment of the Likely Cost Effectiveness of Single-Use Flexible Video Bronchoscopes
Published in
PharmacoEconomics - Open, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s41669-017-0012-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoffer Lilja Terjesen, Julia Kovaleva, Lars Ehlers

Abstract

Bronchoscopic procedures are common in the clinical setting, with estimates indicating 500,000 are undertaken per year in the USA alone. These procedures are generally regarded as safe. Unfortunately, a risk of cross-contamination between patients, with possible subsequent infection, is associated with the re-usable technology typically used in these procedures. Our objective was to conduct an early cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of single-use flexible video bronchoscope technology compared with the current reusable technology in a US hospital intensive care setting. We conducted a CEA to determine an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and constructed a decision analytic model based on the best available evidence from a literature search and a Delphi panel. We also conducted several one- and two-way sensitivity analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis to illuminate the uncertainty associated with the estimates. The literature search showed ample evidence of risk, albeit little of it was quantifiable. Estimates from the Delphi method found approximately a 3% risk of cross-contamination and approximately a 21% risk of subsequent infection. Pneumonia was estimated as the most likely manifestation of infection. The CEA showed a saving of $US118 per procedure and elimination of 0.7% of the risk of infection with the single-use technology. Relevant sensitivity analyses generally validated this result. This study suggests that implementation of the single-use technology in the intensive care unit is cost effective in most scenarios. However, this result should be interpreted with caution because of the lack of certain knowledge on this particular topic.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Other 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 9 13%
Professor 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 40%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 28%
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 30 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,525,776
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics - Open
#242
of 328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,506
of 420,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics - Open
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 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 328 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 420,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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.