↓ Skip to main content

Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a protocol for a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a protocol for a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0639-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miriam Luhnen, Barbara Prediger, Edmund A. M. Neugebauer, Tim Mathes

Abstract

The number of systematic reviews of economic evaluations is steadily increasing. This is probably related to the continuing pressure on health budgets worldwide which makes an efficient resource allocation increasingly crucial. In particular in recent years, the introduction of several high-cost interventions presents enormous challenges regarding universal accessibility and sustainability of health care systems. An increasing number of health authorities, inter alia, feel the need for analyzing economic evidence. Economic evidence might effectively be generated by means of systematic reviews. Nevertheless, no standard methods seem to exist for their preparation so far. The objective of this study was to analyze the methods applied for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations (SR-HE) with a focus on the identification of common challenges. The planned study is a systematic review of the characteristics and methods actually applied in SR-HE. We will combine validated search filters developed for the retrieval of economic evaluations and systematic reviews to identify relevant studies in MEDLINE (via Ovid, 2015-present). To be eligible for inclusion, studies have to conduct a systematic review of full economic evaluations. Articles focusing exclusively on methodological aspects and secondary publications of health technology assessment (HTA) reports will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently assess titles and abstracts and then full-texts of studies for eligibility. Methodological features will be extracted in a standardized, beforehand piloted data extraction form. Data will be summarized with descriptive statistical measures and systematically analyzed focusing on differences/similarities and methodological weaknesses. The systematic review will provide a detailed overview of characteristics of SR-HE and the applied methods. Differences and methodological shortcomings will be detected and their implications will be discussed. The findings of our study can improve the recommendations on the preparation of SR-HE. This can increase the acceptance and usefulness of systematic reviews in health economics for researchers and medical decision makers. The review will not be registered with PROSPERO as it does not meet the eligibility criterion of dealing with clinical outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 13 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 15 21%

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 2017.
All research outputs
#7,046,978
of 12,259,388 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#687
of 946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,186
of 342,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#55
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,259,388 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 342,664 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 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.