↓ Skip to main content

Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Relevance of indirect comparisons in the German early benefit assessment and in comparison to HTA processes in England, France and Scotland
Published in
Health Economics Review, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13561-014-0031-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Lebioda, David Gasche, Franz-Werner Dippel, Karlheinz Theobald, Stefan Plantör

Abstract

Early benefit assessment in Germany under the legislative framework of AMNOG (Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz) requires direct comparisons of the new drug with appropriate comparators determined by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). In case no head-to-head studies are available for direct comparisons, the submission of indirect comparisons is permitted to assess the additional benefit of the new drug. However, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) states a clear preference for head-to-head trials and defines strict requirements for indirect comparisons to be considered in the benefit assessment. Similar requirements also exist in other countries with mandatory health technology assessments (HTA), like France, England and Scotland. Our evaluation shows that a comparison of the different HTA regarding indirect comparisons is difficult. Overall, external preconditions and methodological requirements are demanding and hardly to fulfill by pharmaceutical companies for implementation of indirect comparisons in early benefit assessment. The determination of the appropriate comparators, outcomes, patient subgroups and study choice are the main target within indirect comparisons for the future. To compare and assess submitted indirect comparisons it would be desirable that a transparent process was established, including the mandatory publication of HTA-reports within Europe and international guidelines, accepted by a large number of HTA-agencies.

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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Researcher 6 16%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 December 2014.
All research outputs
#13,417,604
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#172
of 427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,181
of 361,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 427 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 361,296 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 70% of its contemporaries.