↓ Skip to main content

Oncology Modeling for Fun and Profit! Key Steps for Busy Analysts in Health Technology Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Oncology Modeling for Fun and Profit! Key Steps for Busy Analysts in Health Technology Assessment
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40273-017-0583-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaclyn Beca, Don Husereau, Kelvin K. W. Chan, Neil Hawkins, Jeffrey S. Hoch

Abstract

In evaluating new oncology medicines, two common modeling approaches are state transition (e.g., Markov and semi-Markov) and partitioned survival. Partitioned survival models have become more prominent in oncology health technology assessment processes in recent years. Our experience in conducting and evaluating models for economic evaluation has highlighted many important and practical pitfalls. As there is little guidance available on best practices for those who wish to conduct them, we provide guidance in the form of 'Key steps for busy analysts,' who may have very little time and require highly favorable results. Our guidance highlights the continued need for rigorous conduct and transparent reporting of economic evaluations regardless of the modeling approach taken, and the importance of modeling that better reflects reality, which includes better approaches to considering plausibility, estimating relative treatment effects, dealing with post-progression effects, and appropriate characterization of the uncertainty from modeling itself.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Mathematics 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 13 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 05 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,784,175
of 25,175,727 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#114
of 1,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,196
of 337,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#3
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,175,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 337,842 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 89% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.