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 |
Assessing quality of life in a clinical study on heart rehabilitation patients: how well do value sets based on given or experienced health states reflect patients’ valuations?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12955-016-0453-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Reiner Leidl, Bernd Schweikert, Harry Hahmann, Juergen M. Steinacker, Peter Reitmeir |
| Abstract |
Quality of life as an endpoint in a clinical study may be sensitive to the value set used to derive a single score. Focusing on patients' actual valuations in a clinical study, we compare different value sets for the EQ-5D-3L and assess how well they reproduce patients' reported results. A clinical study comparing inpatient (n = 98) and outpatient (n = 47) rehabilitation of patients after an acute coronary event is re-analyzed. Value sets include: 1. Given health states and time-trade-off valuation (GHS-TTO) rendering economic utilities; 2. Experienced health states and valuation by visual analog scale (EHS-VAS). Valuations are compared with patient-reported VAS rating. Accuracy is assessed by mean absolute error (MAE) and by Pearson's correlation ρ. External validity is tested by correlation with established MacNew global scores. Drivers of differences between value sets and VAS are analyzed using repeated measures regression. EHS-VAS had smaller MAEs and higher ρ in all patients and in the inpatient group, and correlated best with MacNew global score. Quality-adjusted survival was more accurately reflected by EHS-VAS. Younger, better educated patients reported lower VAS at admission than the EHS-based value set. EHS-based estimates were mostly able to reproduce patient-reported valuation. Economic utility measurement is conceptually different, produced results less strongly related to patients' reports, and resulted in about 20 % longer quality-adjusted survival. Decision makers should take into account the impact of choosing value sets on effectiveness results. For transferring the results of heart rehabilitation patients from another country or from another valuation method, the EHS-based value set offers a promising estimation option for those decision makers who prioritize patient-reported valuation. Yet, EHS-based estimates may not fully reflect patient-reported VAS in all situations. |
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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 22% |
| Unknown | 12 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 18% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,447,592
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,670
of 2,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,739
of 300,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#26
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 300,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.