↓ Skip to main content

Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Cost-Effectiveness Results

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Cost-Effectiveness Results
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2013.00077
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akash Bijlani, Giovanni Aguzzi, David W. Schaal, Pantaleo Romanelli

Abstract

Objective: To describe and synthesize the current stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) cost-effectiveness research to date across several common SRS and SBRT applications. Methods: This review was limited to comparative economic evaluations of SRS, SBRT, and alternative treatments (e.g., other radiotherapy techniques or surgery). Based on PubMed searches using the terms, "stereotactic," "SRS," "stereotactic radiotherapy," "stereotactic body radiotherapy," "SBRT," "stereotactic ablative radiotherapy," "economic evaluation," "quality adjusted life year (QALY)," "cost," "cost-effectiveness," "cost-utility," and "cost analysis," published studies of cost-effectiveness and health economics were obtained. Included were articles in peer-reviewed journals that presented a comparison of costs between treatment alternatives from January 1997 to November 2012. Papers were excluded if they did not present cost calculations, therapeutic cost comparisons, or health economic endpoints. Results: Clinical outcomes and costs of SRS and SBRT were compared to other therapies for treatment of cancer in the brain, spine, lung, prostate, and pancreas. Treatment outcomes for SRS and SBRT are usually superior or comparable, and cost-effective, relative to alternative techniques. Conclusion: Based on the review of current SRS and SBRT clinical and health economic literature, from a patient perspective, SRS and SBRT provide patients a clinically effective treatment option, while from the payer and provider perspective, SRS and SBRT demonstrate cost savings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 5 4%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 128 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Master 20 15%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 12 9%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 26 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 41%
Physics and Astronomy 17 13%
Engineering 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 31 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 May 2013.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#9,319
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,304
of 288,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#142
of 328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 288,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 328 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.