↓ 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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 98 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 7 7%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 31 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 18%
Psychology 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Engineering 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 37 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 13 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,286,980
of 25,097,836 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#483
of 1,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,267
of 314,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,097,836 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 314,106 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.