↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of screening interventions for assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in women considering combined oral contraceptives

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of screening interventions for assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in women considering combined oral contraceptives
Published in
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11239-017-1554-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zanfina Ademi, C. Simone Sutherland, Joris Van Stiphout, Jöelle Michaud, Goranka Tanackovic, Matthias Schwenkglenks

Abstract

Use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) by women increases the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which can have a major impact on an individuals' quality of life. VTE is also associated with an increase in healthcare costs. Our aim was to systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) considering any screening for risk of VTE in women using COCs. The quality of reporting in each study was assessed, a summary of results was prepared, and the key drivers of cost effectiveness in each of the eligible CEAs were identified. A search strategy using MeSH terms was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, the Centre for Review and Dissemination (CRD) database including the Economic Evaluation Database from the UK National Health Service, and Cochrane reviews. Two reviewers independently screened and determined the final articles, and a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards was used to assess the quality of reporting in terms of perspective, effectiveness measures, model structure, cost, time-horizon and discounting. Four publications (three from Europe, one from the United States) were eligible for inclusion in the review. According to current criteria, relevant elements were sometimes not captured and the sources of epidemiological and effectiveness data used in the CEAs were of limited quality. The studies varied in terms of type of costs assessed, country settings, model assumptions and uncertainty around input parameters. Key drivers of CEAs were sensitivity and specificity of the test, incidence rate of VTE, relative risk of prophylaxis, and costs of the test. The reviewed studies were too dissimilar to draw a firm conclusion on cost-effectiveness analysis about universal and selective screening in high-risk groups. The new emerging diagnostic tools for identifying women at risk of developing VTE, that are more predictive and less costly, highlight the need for more studies that apply the latest evidence and utilize robust methods for cost-effectiveness analysis. This information is required to improve decision making for this pertinent issue within personalized medicine.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,955,443
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#617
of 992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,031
of 289,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 289,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.