↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Decision Making, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters
Title
Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine
Published in
Medical Decision Making, September 2018
DOI 10.1177/0272989x18798833
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter J. Neumann, David D. Kim, Thomas A. Trikalinos, Mark J. Sculpher, Joshua A. Salomon, Lisa A. Prosser, Douglas K. Owens, David O. Meltzer, Karen M. Kuntz, Murray Krahn, David Feeny, Anirban Basu, Louise B. Russell, Joanna E. Siegel, Theodore G. Ganiats, Gillian D. Sanders

Abstract

In 2016, the Second Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine updated the seminal work of the original panel from 2 decades earlier. The Second Panel had an opportunity to reflect on the evolution of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and to provide guidance for the next generation of practitioners and consumers. In this article, we present key topics for future research and policy. During the course of its deliberations, the Second Panel discussed numerous topics for advancing methods and for improving the use of CEA in decision making. We identify and consider 7 areas for which the panel believes that future research would be particularly fruitful. In each of these areas, we highlight outstanding research needs. The list is not intended as an exhaustive inventory but rather a set of key items that surfaced repeatedly in the panel's discussions. In the online Appendix , we also list and expound briefly on 8 other important topics. We highlight 7 key areas: CEA and perspectives (determining, valuing, and summarizing elements for the analysis), modeling (comparative modeling and model transparency), health outcomes (valuing temporary health and path states, as well as health effects on caregivers), costing (a cost catalogue, valuing household production, and productivity effects), evidence synthesis (developing theory on learning across studies and combining data from clinical trials and observational studies), estimating and using cost-effectiveness thresholds (empirically representing 2 broad concepts: opportunity costs and public willingness to pay), and reporting and communicating CEAs (written protocols and a quality scoring system). Cost-effectiveness analysis remains a flourishing and evolving field with many opportunities for research. More work is needed on many fronts to understand how best to incorporate CEA into policy and practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#671,423
of 11,975,937 outputs
Outputs from Medical Decision Making
#54
of 891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,995
of 163,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Decision Making
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,975,937 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 163,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.