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 |
Cost-effectiveness of a cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy algorithm in high-risk patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Perioperative Medicine, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13741-015-0024-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zia Sadique, David A. Harrison, Richard Grieve, Kathryn M. Rowan, Rupert M. Pearse, for the OPTIMISE study group |
| Abstract |
The use of cardiac output monitoring to guide intra-venous fluid and inotropic therapies may improve peri-operative outcomes, but uncertainty exists regarding clinical effectiveness and robust cost-effectiveness evidence is lacking. The objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of peri-operative cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy versus usual care in high-risk patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. The study undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a multi-centre randomised trial that recruited patients from 17 hospitals in the United Kingdom. The trial compared cardiac output-guided, haemodynamic therapy algorithm for intra-venous fluid and inotrope (dopexamine) infusion during and 6 h following surgery, with usual care. Resource use and outcome data on 734 high-risk trial patients aged over 50 years undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery were used to report cost-effectiveness at 6 months and to project lifetime cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness analysis used information on health-related quality of life (QoL) at randomisation, 30 days, and 6 months combined with information on vital status to report quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Each QALY was valued using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended threshold of willingness to pay (£20,000 per QALY) in conjunction with the costs of each group to report the incremental net monetary benefits (INB) of the treatment algorithm versus usual care. The mean [SD] quality of life at 30 days and 6 months was similar between the treatment groups (at 6 months, intervention group 0.73 [0.28] versus usual care group 0.71 [0.30]; mean gain 0.03 [95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.08]). At 6 months, survival, mean QALYs and mean healthcare costs (intervention group £8574 versus usual care group £8974) were also similar. At the cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the incremental net benefit of haemodynamic therapy over the patients' lifetime was positive (£4168 [95 % CI -£3063 to £11,398]). This corresponds to an 87 % probability that this intervention is cost-effective. Cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy algorithm was associated with an average cost reduction and improvement in QALY and is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to confirm the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this treatment. ISRCTN04386758. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 21% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Professor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,412,253
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#97
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,972
of 389,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 389,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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.