↓ Skip to main content

Economic evaluation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis strategies: protocol for a methodological systematic review and quantitative synthesis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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 of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis strategies: protocol for a methodological systematic review and quantitative synthesis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0710-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kednapa Thavorn, Howsikan Kugathasan, Darrell H. S. Tan, Nasheed Moqueet, Stefan D. Baral, Becky Skidmore, Derek MacFadden, Anna Simkin, Sharmistha Mishra

Abstract

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with antiretrovirals is an efficacious and effective intervention to decrease the risk of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) acquisition. Yet drug and delivery costs prohibit access in many jurisdictions. In the absence of guidelines for the synthesis of economic evaluations, we developed a protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluation studies for PrEP by drawing on best practices in systematic reviews and the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations. We aim to estimate the incremental cost per health outcome of PrEP compared with placebo, no PrEP, or other HIV prevention strategies; assess the methodological variability in, and quality of, economic evaluations of PrEP; estimate the incremental cost per health outcome of different PrEP implementation strategies; and quantify the potential sources of heterogeneity in outcomes. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase) and the gray literature. We will include economic evaluation studies that assess both costs and health outcomes of PrEP in HIV-uninfected individuals, without restricting language or year of publication. Two reviewers will independently screen studies using predefined inclusion criteria, extract data, and assess methodological quality using the Philips checklist, Second Panel on the Cost-effectiveness of Health and Medicines, and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research recommendations. Outcomes of interest include incremental costs and outcomes in natural units or utilities, cost-effectiveness ratios, and net monetary benefit. We will perform descriptive and quantitative syntheses using sensitivity analyses of outcomes by population subgroups, HIV epidemic settings, study designs, baseline intervention contexts, key parameter inputs and assumptions, type of outcomes, economic perspectives, and willingness to pay values. Findings will guide future economic evaluation of PrEP strategies in terms of methodological and knowledge gaps, and will inform decisions on the efficient integration of PrEP into public health programs across epidemiologic and health system contexts. PROSPERO CRD42016038440 .

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 19%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 5%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 42 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 48 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,810,623
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#993
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,393
of 333,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 333,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.