↓ Skip to main content

Do health economic evaluations using observational data provide reliable assessment of treatment effects?

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Do health economic evaluations using observational data provide reliable assessment of treatment effects?
Published in
Health Economics Review, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/2191-1991-3-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitrios Rovithis

Abstract

Economic evaluation in modern health care systems is seen as a transparent scientific framework that can be used to advance progress towards improvements in population health at the best possible value. Despite the perceived superiority that trial-based studies have in terms of internal validity, economic evaluations often employ observational data. In this review, the interface between econometrics and economic evaluation is explored, with emphasis placed on highlighting methodological issues relating to the evaluation of cost-effectiveness within a bivariate framework. Studies that satisfied the eligibility criteria exemplified the use of matching, regression analysis, propensity scores, instrumental variables, as well as difference-in-differences approaches. All studies were reviewed and critically appraised using a structured template. The findings suggest that although state-of-the-art econometric methods have the potential to provide evidence on the causal effects of clinical and policy interventions, their application in economic evaluation is subject to a number of limitations. These range from no credible assessment of key assumptions and scarce evidence regarding the relative performance of different methods, to lack of reporting of important study elements, such as a summary outcome measure and its associated sampling uncertainty. Further research is required to better understand the ways in which observational data should be analysed in the context of the economic evaluation framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 33%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 17 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Decision Sciences 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 15 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 September 2013.
All research outputs
#13,316,898
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#168
of 421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,984
of 201,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 201,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.