↓ Skip to main content

A Modeling Study of the Cost-Effectiveness of a Risk-Stratified Surveillance Program for Melanoma in the United Kingdom

Overview of attention for article published in Value in Health (Elsevier Science), June 2018
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
A Modeling Study of the Cost-Effectiveness of a Risk-Stratified Surveillance Program for Melanoma in the United Kingdom
Published in
Value in Health (Elsevier Science), June 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward C.F. Wilson, Juliet A. Usher-Smith, Jon Emery, Pippa Corrie, Fiona M. Walter

Abstract

Population-wide screening for melanoma is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nevertheless, targeted surveillance of high-risk individuals may be. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of various surveillance strategies in the UK population, stratified by risk using a simple self-assessment tool scoring between 0 and 67. A decision model comparing alternative surveillance policies from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over 30 years was developed. The strategy with the highest expected net benefit for each risk score was identified, resulting in a compound risk-stratified policy describing the most cost-effective population-wide strategy. The overall expected cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and associated uncertainty were reported. The most cost-effective strategy is for those with a Williams score of 15 to 21 (relative risk [RR] of 0.79-1.60 vs. a mean score of 17 in the United Kingdom) to be offered a one-off full-body skin examination, and for those with a score of 22 or more (RR 1.79+) to be enrolled into a quinquennial monitoring program, rising to annual recall for those with a risk score greater than 43 (RR 20.95+). Expected incremental cost would be £164 million per annum (~0.1% of the National Health Service budget), gaining 15,947 additional QALYs and yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £10,199/QALY gained (51.3% probability <£30,000). The risk-stratified policy would be expensive to implement but cost-effective compared with typical UK thresholds (£20,000-£30,000/QALY gained), although decision uncertainty is high. Phased implementation enrolling only higher risk individuals would be substantially less expensive, but with consequent foregone health gain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 38%
Unspecified 3 19%
Other 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 31%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 19%
Psychology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 3 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,138,140
of 13,187,018 outputs
Outputs from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#141
of 2,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,418
of 270,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#10
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,187,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,488 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. 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 270,345 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.