↓ Skip to main content

Economic evaluation in the context of rare diseases: is it possible?

Overview of attention for article published in Cadernos de Saúde Pública, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Economic evaluation in the context of rare diseases: is it possible?
Published in
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, March 2015
DOI 10.1590/0102-311x00213813
Pubmed ID
Authors

Everton Nunes da Silva, Tanara Rosângela Vieira Sousa

Abstract

This study analyzes the available evidence on the adequacy of economic evaluation for decision-making on the incorporation or exclusion of technologies for rare diseases. The authors conducted a structured literature review in MEDLINE via PubMed, CRD, LILACS, SciELO, and Google Scholar (gray literature). Economic evaluation studies had their origins in Welfare Economics, in which individuals maximize their utilities based on allocative efficiency. There is no widely accepted criterion in the literature to weigh the expected utilities, in the sense of assigning more weight to individuals with greater health needs. Thus, economic evaluation studies do not usually weigh utilities asymmetrically (that is, everyone is treated equally, which in Brazil is also a Constitutional principle). Healthcare systems have ratified the use of economic evaluation as the main tool to assist decision-making. However, this approach does not rule out the use of other methodologies to complement cost-effectiveness studies, such as Person Trade-Off and Rule of Rescue.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 18 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 19 45%
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 29 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#1,382
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,222
of 270,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#24
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 270,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.