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 |
The XprESS Multi-Sinus Dilation System for the Treatment of Chronic Sinusitis: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40258-017-0337-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Jenks, Iain Willits, Emily Eaton Turner, Neil Hewitt, Mick Arber, Helen Cole, Joyce Craig, Andrew Sims |
| Abstract |
The XprESS multi-sinus dilation system (XprESS) is a minimally invasive alternative to functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) used in the treatment of people with chronic or recurrent acute sinusitis refractory to medical treatment. The manufacturer of XprESS, Entellus Medical, claims the technology is as effective as FESS in improving quality of life and is associated with quicker recovery times and reduced costs. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) selected XprESS for evaluation. Nine trials published in 13 papers were correctly identified by the company as relevant to the decision problem, including one randomised controlled trial (REMODEL study). From this evidence, the company concluded that XprESS is as beneficial as FESS for a range of clinical endpoints. The External Assessment Centre (EAC) agreed with the company's conclusion in a subgroup of patients, but judged that the evidence did not generalise to patients within the NHS fully. The company constructed a de novo costing model. XprESS generated cost-savings of £1302 per patient compared with FESS. The EAC critiqued and updated the model's inputs, with differences in results driven by changes in assumptions on procedure duration, length of hospital stay and the proportion of procedures undertaken in an outpatient setting under local anaesthetic. Although cost-incurring in the base case, XprESS generated cost savings under certain scenarios. The MTAC reviewed the evidence and supported the case for adoption, issuing positive draft recommendations. After public consultation NICE published this as Medical Technologies Guidance 30. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 17 July 2020.
All research outputs
#5,504,756
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#229
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,191
of 314,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 314,066 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.