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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Comparison of Four Software Programs for Implementing Decision Analytic Cost-Effectiveness Models
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-017-0510-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chase Hollman, Mike Paulden, Petros Pechlivanoglou, Christopher McCabe |
| Abstract |
The volume and technical complexity of both academic and commercial research using decision analytic modelling has increased rapidly over the last two decades. The range of software programs used for their implementation has also increased, but it remains true that a small number of programs account for the vast majority of cost-effectiveness modelling work. We report a comparison of four software programs: TreeAge Pro, Microsoft Excel, R and MATLAB. Our focus is on software commonly used for building Markov models and decision trees to conduct cohort simulations, given their predominance in the published literature around cost-effectiveness modelling. Our comparison uses three qualitative criteria as proposed by Eddy et al.: "transparency and validation", "learning curve" and "capability". In addition, we introduce the quantitative criterion of processing speed. We also consider the cost of each program to academic users and commercial users. We rank the programs based on each of these criteria. We find that, whilst Microsoft Excel and TreeAge Pro are good programs for educational purposes and for producing the types of analyses typically required by health technology assessment agencies, the efficiency and transparency advantages of programming languages such as MATLAB and R become increasingly valuable when more complex analyses are required. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 3 | 18% |
| Canada | 2 | 12% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 6% |
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| Japan | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Peru | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 12% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 21% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 8% |
| Engineering | 8 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 24% |
| Unknown | 24 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 04 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,607,544
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#100
of 1,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,379
of 310,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,861 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 310,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.