↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation Studies Developed in Brazil from 1980 to 2013

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation Studies Developed in Brazil from 1980 to 2013
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00052
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tassia Cristina Decimoni, Roseli Leandro, Luciana Martins Rozman, Dawn Craig, Cynthia P. Iglesias, Hillegonda Maria Dutilh Novaes, Patrícia Coelho de Soárez

Abstract

Brazil has sought to use economic evaluation to support healthcare decision-making processes. While a number of health economic evaluations (HEEs) have been conducted, no study has systematically reviewed the quality of Brazilian HEE. The objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview regarding the state of HEE research and to evaluate the number, characteristics, and quality of reporting of published HEE studies conducted in a Brazilian setting. We systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin American, and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences Database, Scientific Electronic Library Online, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, health technology assessment Database, Bireme, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde Economia da Saúde); citation indexes (SCOPUS, Web of Science), and Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologia em Saúde. Partial and full HEEs published between 1980 and 2013 that referred to a Brazilian setting were considered for inclusion. In total, 535 studies were included in the review, 36.8% of these were considered to be full HEE. The category of healthcare technologies more frequently assessed were procedures (34.8%) and drugs (28.8%) which main objective was treatment (72.1%). Forty-four percent of the studies reported their funding source and 36% reported a conflict of interest. Overall, the full HEE quality of reporting was satisfactory. But some items were generally poorly reported and significant improvement is required: (1) methods used to estimate healthcare resource use quantities and unit costs, (2) methods used to estimate utility values, (3) sources of funding, and (4) conflicts of interest. A steady number of HEE have been published in Brazil since 1980. To improve their contribution to inform national healthcare policy efforts need to be made to enhance the quality of reporting of HEEs and promote improvements in the way HEEs are designed, implemented (i.e., using sound methods for HEEs) and reported.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 34 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 8%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 34 47%
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 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,377,572
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#3,659
of 10,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,895
of 330,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#78
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 330,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.