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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Personalized medicine in colorectal cancer diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review of health economic evaluations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12962-018-0085-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annamaria Guglielmo, Nicoletta Staropoli, Monica Giancotti, Marianna Mauro |
| Abstract |
Due to its epidemiological relevance, several studies have been performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests and treatments in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We reviewed economic evaluations on diagnosis of inherited CRC-syndromes and genetic tests for the detection of mutations associated with response to therapeutics. A systematic literature review was performed by searching the main literature databases for relevant papers on the field, published in the last 5 years. 20 studies were included in the final analysis: 14 investigating the cost-effectiveness of hereditary-CRC screening; 5 evaluating the cost-effectiveness of KRAS mutation assessment before treatment; and 1 study analysing the cost-effectiveness of genetic tests for early-stage CRC patients prognosis. Overall, we found that: (a) screening strategies among CRC patients were more effective than no screening; (b) all the evaluated interventions were cost-saving for certain willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold; and (c) all new CRC patients diagnosed at age 70 or below should be screened. Regarding patients treatment, we found that KRAS testing is economically sustainable only if anticipated in patients with non-metastatic CRC (mCRC), while becoming unsustainable, due to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) beyond the levels of WTP-threshold, in all others evaluated scenarios. The poor evidence in the field, combined to the number of assumptions done to perform the models, lead us to a high level of uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness of genetic evaluations in CRC, suggesting that major research is required in order to assess the best combination among detection tests, type of genetic test screening and targeted-therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 25 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,119,957
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#132
of 431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,197
of 441,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 441,076 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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.