↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of cerebrospinal biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, March 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Cost-effectiveness of cerebrospinal biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13195-017-0243-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Spencer A. W. Lee, Luciano A. Sposato, Vladimir Hachinski, Lauren E. Cipriano

Abstract

Accurate and timely diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is important for prompt initiation of treatment in patients with AD and to avoid inappropriate treatment of patients with false-positive diagnoses. Using a Markov model, we estimated the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of cerebrospinal fluid biomarker analysis in a cohort of patients referred to a neurologist or memory clinic with suspected AD who remained without a definitive diagnosis of AD or another condition after neuroimaging. Parametric values were estimated from previous health economic models and the medical literature. Extensive deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the results. At a 12.7% pretest probability of AD, biomarker analysis after normal neuroimaging findings has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $11,032 per QALY gained. Results were sensitive to the pretest prevalence of AD, and the ICER increased to over $50,000 per QALY when the prevalence of AD fell below 9%. Results were also sensitive to patient age (biomarkers are less cost-effective in older cohorts), treatment uptake and adherence, biomarker test characteristics, and the degree to which patients with suspected AD who do not have AD benefit from AD treatment when they are falsely diagnosed. The cost-effectiveness of biomarker analysis depends critically on the prevalence of AD in the tested population. In general practice, where the prevalence of AD after clinical assessment and normal neuroimaging findings may be low, biomarker analysis is unlikely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained. However, when at least 1 in 11 patients has AD after normal neuroimaging findings, biomarker analysis is likely cost-effective. Specifically, for patients referred to memory clinics with memory impairment who do not present neuroimaging evidence of medial temporal lobe atrophy, pretest prevalence of AD may exceed 15%. Biomarker analysis is a potentially cost-saving diagnostic method and should be considered for adoption in high-prevalence centers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 22%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 19%
Psychology 6 9%
Engineering 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 17 27%
Unknown 19 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,250,202
of 12,342,061 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#218
of 522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,616
of 261,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,342,061 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 261,179 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.