↓ Skip to main content

Economic Evaluations Alongside Efficient Study Designs Using Large Observational Datasets: the PLEASANT Trial Case Study

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, January 2017
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Economic Evaluations Alongside Efficient Study Designs Using Large Observational Datasets: the PLEASANT Trial Case Study
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40273-016-0484-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Franklin, Sarah Davis, Michelle Horspool, Wei Sun Kua, Steven Julious

Abstract

Large observational datasets such as Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) provide opportunities to conduct clinical studies and economic evaluations with efficient designs. Our objectives were to report the economic evaluation methodology for a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a UK NHS-delivered public health intervention for children with asthma that was evaluated using CPRD and describe the impact of this methodology on results. CPRD identified eligible patients using predefined asthma diagnostic codes and captured 1-year pre- and post-intervention healthcare contacts (August 2012 to July 2014). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) 4 months post-intervention were estimated by assigning utility values to exacerbation-related contacts; a systematic review identified these utility values because preference-based outcome measures were not collected. Bootstrapped costs were evaluated 12 months post-intervention, both with 1-year regression-based baseline adjustment (BA) and without BA (observed). Of 12,179 patients recruited, 8190 (intervention 3641; control 4549) were evaluated in the primary analysis, which included patients who received the protocol-defined intervention and for whom CPRD data were available. The intervention's per-patient incremental QALY loss was 0.00017 (bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence intervals [BCa 95% CI] -0.00051 to 0.00018) and cost savings were £14.74 (observed; BCa 95% CI -75.86 to 45.19) or £36.07 (BA; BCa 95% CI -77.11 to 9.67), respectively. The probability of cost savings was much higher when accounting for BA versus observed costs due to baseline cost differences between trial arms (96.3 vs. 67.3%, respectively). Economic evaluations using data from a large observational database without any primary data collection is feasible, informative and potentially efficient. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ISRCTN03000938.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 8 18%
Unspecified 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 39%
Unspecified 8 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 7 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,279,474
of 9,787,859 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#124
of 1,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,918
of 317,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,787,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,053 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 317,836 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.