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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Is chest X-ray screening for lung cancer in smokers cost-effective? Evidence from a population-based study in Italy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12962-015-0041-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paolo Pertile, Albino Poli, Lorenzo Dominioni, Nicola Rotolo, Elisa Nardecchia, Massimo Castiglioni, Massimo Paolucci, William Mantovani, Andrea Imperatori |
| Abstract |
After implementation of the PREDICA annual chest X-ray (CXR) screening program in smokers in the general practice setting of Varese-Italy a significant reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality (18 %) was observed. The objective of this study covering July 1997 through December 2006 was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. We examined detailed information on lung cancer (LC) cases that occurred among smokers invited to be screened in the PREDICA study (Invitation-to-screening Group, n = 5815 subjects) to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from LC diagnosis until death. The control group consisted of 156 screening-eligible smokers from the same area, uninvited and unscreened, who developed LC and were treated by usual care. We calculated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) by comparing LC management in screening participants (n = 1244 subjects) and in the Invitation-to-screening group versus control group. The average number of QALYs since LC diagnosis was 1.7, 1.49 and 1.07, respectively, in screening participants, the invitation-to-screening group, and the control group. The average total cost (screening + management) per LC case was higher in screening participants (€17,516) and the Invitation-to-screening Group (€16,167) than in the control group (€15,503). Assuming a maximum willingness to pay of €30,000/QALY, we found that the intervention was cost-effective with high probability: 79 % for screening participation (screening participants vs. control group) and 95 % for invitation-to-screening (invitation-to-screening group vs. control group). Based on the PREDICA study, annual CXR screening of high-risk smokers in a general practice setting has high probability of being cost-effective with a maximum willingness to pay of €30,000/QALY. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,825,310
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#291
of 423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,919
of 267,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 267,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.