↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Cost-effectiveness of out-of-hospital continuous positive airway pressure for acute respiratory failure: decision analytic modelling using data from a feasibility trial
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, January 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12873-021-00404-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Praveen Thokala, Gordon W. Fuller, Steve Goodacre, Samuel Keating, Esther Herbert, Gavin D. Perkins, Andy Rosser, Imogen Gunson, Joshua Miller, Matthew Ward, Mike Bradburn, Tim Harris, Maggie Marsh, Kate Ren, Cindy Cooper

Abstract

Standard prehospital management for Acute respiratory failure (ARF) involves controlled oxygen therapy. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a potentially beneficial alternative treatment, however, it is uncertain whether this could improve outcomes and provide value for money. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP in ARF. A cost-utility economic evaluation was performed using a probabilistic decision tree model synthesising available evidence. The model consisted of a hypothetical cohort of patients in a representative ambulance service with undifferentiated ARF, receiving standard oxygen therapy or prehospital CPAP. Costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using methods recommended by NICE. In the base case analysis, using CPAP effectiveness estimates form the ACUTE trial, the mean expected costs of standard care and prehospital CPAP were £15,201 and £14,850 respectively and the corresponding mean expected QALYs were 1.190 and 1.128, respectively. The mean ICER estimated as standard oxygen therapy compared to prehospital CPAP was £5685 per QALY which indicated that standard oxygen therapy strategy was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY (67% probability). The scenario analysis, using effectiveness estimates from an updated meta-analysis, suggested that prehospital CPAP was more effective (mean incremental QALYs of 0.157), but also more expensive (mean incremental costs of £1522), than standard care. The mean ICER, estimated as prehospital CPAP compared to standard care, was £9712 per QALY. At the £20,000 per QALY prehospital CPAP was highly likely to be the most cost-effective strategy (94%). Cost-effectiveness of prehospital CPAP depends upon the estimate of effectiveness. When based on a small pragmatic feasibility trial, standard oxygen therapy is cost-effective. When based on meta-analysis of heterogeneous trials, CPAP is cost-effective. Value of information analyses support commissioning of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial, providing feasibility and plausibility conditions are met.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Other 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 15 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Psychology 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 16 46%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 February 2021.
All research outputs
#14,272,319
of 23,317,888 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#423
of 770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,722
of 504,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,317,888 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. 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 504,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.