↓ Skip to main content

The premarket assessment of the cost-effectiveness of a predictive technology “Straticyte™” for the early detection of oral cancer: a decision analytic model

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
The premarket assessment of the cost-effectiveness of a predictive technology “Straticyte™” for the early detection of oral cancer: a decision analytic model
Published in
Health Economics Review, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13561-017-0170-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Khoudigian-Sinani, G. Blackhouse, M. Levine, L. Thabane, D. O’Reilly

Abstract

Approximately half of oral cancers are detected in advanced stages. The current gold standard is histopathological assessment of biopsied tissue, which is subjective and dependent on expertise. Straticyte™, a novel prognostic tool at the pre-market stage, that more accurately identifies patients at high risk for oral cancer than histopathology alone. This study conducts an early cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of Straticyte™ and histopathology versus histopathology alone for oral cancer diagnosis in adult patients. A decision-analytic model was constructed after narrowing the scope of Straticyte™, and defining application paths. Data was gathered using the belief elicitation method, and systematic review and meta-analysis. The early CEA was conducted from private-payer and patient perspectives, capturing both direct and indirect costs over a five-year time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate uncertainty. Compared to histopathology alone, histopathology with Straticyte™ was the dominant strategy, resulting in fewer cancer cases (31 versus 36 per 100 patients) and lower total costs per cancer case avoided (3,360 versus 3,553). This remained robust when Straticyte™ was applied to moderate and mild cases, but became slightly more expensive but still more effective than histopathology alone when Straticyte™ was applied to only mild cases. The probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that incorporating Straticyte™ to the current algorithm would be cost-effective over a wide range of parameters and willingness-to-pay values. This study demonstrates high probability that Straticyte™ and histopathology will be cost-effective, which encourages continued investment in the product. The analysis is informed by limited clinical data on Straticyte™, however as more data becomes available, more precise estimates will be generated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 20%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 29%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 13 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,481,147
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#261
of 435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,147
of 322,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 322,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.