↓ Skip to main content

Economic Evaluation in Stratified Medicine: Methodological Issues and Challenges

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Economic Evaluation in Stratified Medicine: Methodological Issues and Challenges
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2016.00113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hans-Joerg Fugel, Mark Nuijten, Maarten Postma, Ken Redekop

Abstract

Stratified Medicine (SM) is becoming a practical reality with the targeting of medicines by using a biomarker or genetic-based diagnostic to identify the eligible patient sub-population. Like any healthcare intervention, SM interventions have costs and consequences that must be considered by reimbursement authorities with limited resources. Methodological standards and guidelines exist for economic evaluations in clinical pharmacology and are an important component for health technology assessments (HTAs) in many countries. However, these guidelines have initially been developed for traditional pharmaceuticals and not for complex interventions with multiple components. This raises the issue as to whether these guidelines are adequate to SM interventions or whether new specific guidance and methodology is needed to avoid inconsistencies and contradictory findings when assessing economic value in SM. This article describes specific methodological challenges when conducting health economic (HE) evaluations for SM interventions and outlines potential modifications necessary to existing evaluation guidelines /principles that would promote consistent economic evaluations for SM. Specific methodological aspects for SM comprise considerations on the choice of comparator, measuring effectiveness and outcomes, appropriate modeling structure and the scope of sensitivity analyses. Although current HE methodology can be applied for SM, greater complexity requires further methodology development and modifications in the guidelines.

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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Master 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 17 36%
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 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,802,399
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#7,102
of 16,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,453
of 301,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#50
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,148 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 301,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 51% of its contemporaries.