↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of health state utility values in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with a focus on previously treated patients

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 2,221)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
132 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 review of health state utility values in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with a focus on previously treated patients
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0994-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noman Paracha, Ahmed Abdulla, Katherine S. MacGilchrist

Abstract

Health state utility values (HSUVs) are an important input to economic evaluations and the choice of HSUV can affect the estimate of relative cost-effectiveness between interventions. This systematic review identified utility scores for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), as well as disutilities or utility decrements relevant to the experience of patients with mNSCLC, by treatment line and health state. The MEDLINE®, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched (September 2016) for publications describing HSUVs in mNSCLC in any treatment line. The EQ-5D website, the School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database (ScHARRHUD) and major pharmacoeconomic and clinical conferences in 2015-2016 were also queried. Studies in adults with previously treated mNSCLC were selected for further analysis. The information extracted included study design, description of treatment and health state, respondent details, instrument and tariff, HSUV or (dis) utility decrement estimates, quality of study, and appropriateness for use in economic evaluations. Of 1883 references identified, 36 publications of 34 studies were included: 19 reported EQ-5D scores; eight reported HSUVs from valuations of vignettes made by members of the public using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO); two reported SG or TTO directly elicited from patients; two reported EQ-5D visual analogue scale scores only; one reported Assessment of Quality of Life instrument scores; one reported HSUVs for caregivers to patients with mNSCLC using the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey; and one estimated HSUVs based on expert opinion. The range of HSUVs identified for comparable health states showed how differences in study type, tariff, health state and the measures used can drive variation in HSUV estimates. This systematic review provides a set of published HSUVs that are relevant to the experience of adult patients previously treated for mNSCLC. Our review begins to address the challenge of identifying reliable estimates of utility values in mNSCLC that are suitable for use in economic evaluations, and also highlights how varying estimates result from differences in methodology.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 8 6%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 46 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 53 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 18 June 2023.
All research outputs
#572,983
of 23,883,950 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#12
of 2,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,175
of 340,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,883,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,221 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 340,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.