↓ Skip to main content

Economic Analyses in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Review of the Literature From a Clinical Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
41 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.
Article details
Title
Economic Analyses in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Review of the Literature From a Clinical Perspective
Published in
International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.03.040
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The purpose of this review was to describe cost-effectiveness and cost analysis studies across treatment modalities for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN), while placing their results in context of the current clinical practice. We performed a literature search in PubMed for English-language studies addressing economic analyses of treatment modalities for SCCHN published from January 2000 to March 2013. We also performed an additional search for related studies published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom. Identified articles were classified into 3 clinical approaches (organ preservation, radiation therapy modalities, and chemotherapy regimens) and into 2 types of economic studies (cost analysis and cost-effectiveness/cost-utility studies). All cost estimates were normalized to US dollars, year 2013 values. Our search yielded 23 articles: 13 related to organ preservation approaches, 5 to radiation therapy modalities, and 5 to chemotherapy regimens. In general, studies analyzed different questions and modalities, making it difficult to reach a conclusion. Even when restricted to comparisons of modalities within the same clinical approach, studies often yielded conflicting findings. The heterogeneity across economic studies of SCCHN should be carefully understood in light of the modeling assumptions and limitations of each study and placed in context with relevant settings of clinical practices and study perspectives. Furthermore, the scarcity of comparative effectiveness and quality-of-life data poses unique challenges for conducting economic analyses for a resource-intensive disease, such as SCCHN, that requires a multimodal care. Future research is needed to better understand how to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of different modalities for SCCHN.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 9 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 29%
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 03 August 2014.
All research outputs
#24,751,637
of 34,358,242 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
#11,909
of 15,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,975
of 272,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
#65
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,358,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 272,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.