↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Measurement Uncertainty in Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) of In Vitro Tests

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
The Role of Measurement Uncertainty in Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) of In Vitro Tests
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40273-018-0638-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison F. Smith, Mike Messenger, Peter Hall, Claire Hulme

Abstract

Numerous factors contribute to uncertainty in test measurement procedures, and this uncertainty can have a significant impact on the downstream clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of testing strategies. Currently, however, there is no clear guidance concerning if or how such factors should be considered within Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) of tests. The aim was to provide an introduction to key concepts in measurement uncertainty for the HTA community and to explore, via systematic review, current methods utilised within HTAs. HTAs of in vitro tests including a model-based economic evaluation were identified via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) HTA database and key reimbursement authority websites. Data were extracted to explore the specific components of measurement uncertainty assessed and methods utilised. The findings were narratively synthesised. Of 107 identified HTAs, 20 (19%) attempted to assess components of measurement uncertainty: 15 did so via some form of pre-model assessment (such as a literature review or laboratory survey); four also included components within the economic model; and one considered measurement uncertainty within the model only. One study quantified the impact of measurement uncertainty on cost-effectiveness and found that this parameter significantly changed the results, but did not impact the overall decision uncertainty. A minority of HTAs identified from this review used various approaches to assess and/or incorporate the impact of measurement uncertainty, indicating that these assessments are feasible. Uncertainty remains around best practice methodology for conducting such analyses; further research is required to ensure that future HTAs are fit for purpose.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Other 9 27%
Unknown 10 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 23 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,882,189
of 24,383,935 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#400
of 1,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,767
of 335,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#9
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,383,935 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,956 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 335,847 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.