↓ Skip to main content

Published and unpublished evidence in coverage decision-making for pharmaceuticals in Europe: existing approaches and way forward

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Published and unpublished evidence in coverage decision-making for pharmaceuticals in Europe: existing approaches and way forward
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0080-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitra Panteli, Alexandra Nolting, Helene Eckhardt, Michael Kulig, Reinhard Busse

Abstract

Dissemination bias occurs when only some results emerging from clinical research reach their intended audience in the knowledge translation process. Given that coverage decisions increasingly rely on evidence, it is important to explore the types of evidence considered. This paper aimed to examine the evidence base used by regulatory institutions involved in pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in a broad range of European countries, as well as their awareness of and approach towards dissemination bias. A mixed methods approach was adopted. Regulatory documents and published literature were identified in systematic searches and relevant documents were analysed. An online survey was carried out to verify and expand insights. Forty-two relevant regulatory documents and 10 publications were included. The survey had a 35% response rate, yielding valid responses for 13 countries. A fragmented impression was obtained for most countries indicating a general lack of transparency regarding both processes of decision-making and approaches towards unpublished information. Dissemination bias was rarely consistently considered. Practices for the identification and inclusion of all available evidence varied considerably, as did the influence of missing evidence on decision-making. Differences were often attributable to the regulatory context and/or institutional principles. Best practice is difficult to generalize given the identified variations. Individual exemplary practices support the necessity for institutional exchange at international level. Increased institutional commitment to transparency of methods and processes should be advocated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 12 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,753,975
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#848
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,425
of 399,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 399,942 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.