↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of online hemodiafiltration versus high-flux hemodialysis

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 350)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Cost-effectiveness analysis of online hemodiafiltration versus high-flux hemodialysis
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s109649
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Ramponi, Claudio Ronco, Giacomo Mason, Enrico Rettore, Daniele Marcelli, Francesca Martino, Mauro Neri, Alejandro Martin-Malo, Bernard Canaud, Francesco Locatelli

Abstract

Clinical studies suggest that hemodiafiltration (HDF) may lead to better clinical outcomes than high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD), but concerns have been raised about the cost-effectiveness of HDF versus HF-HD. Aim of this study was to investigate whether clinical benefits, in terms of longer survival and better health-related quality of life, are worth the possibly higher costs of HDF compared to HF-HD. The analysis comprised a simulation based on the combined results of previous published studies, with the following steps: 1) estimation of the survival function of HF-HD patients from a clinical trial and of HDF patients using the risk reduction estimated in a meta-analysis; 2) simulation of the survival of the same sample of patients as if allocated to HF-HD or HDF using three-state Markov models; and 3) application of state-specific health-related quality of life coefficients and differential costs derived from the literature. Several Monte Carlo simulations were performed, including simulations for patients with different risk profiles, for example, by age (patients aged 40, 50, and 60 years), sex, and diabetic status. Scatter plots of simulations in the cost-effectiveness plane were produced, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were computed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €6,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was estimated for the baseline cohort of 50-year-old male patients. Given the commonly accepted threshold of €40,000/QALY, HDF is cost-effective. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that HDF is cost-effective with a probability of ~81% at a threshold of €40,000/QALY. It is fundamental to measure the outcome also in terms of quality of life. HDF is more cost-effective for younger patients. HDF can be considered cost-effective compared to HF-HD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 35%
Student > Master 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 59%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Unspecified 2 12%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 19 February 2019.
All research outputs
#517,226
of 12,968,588 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#16
of 350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,455
of 264,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,968,588 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 350 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 264,445 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.