↓ Skip to main content

Economic analyses of venous thromboembolism prevention strategies in hospitalized patients: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Economic analyses of venous thromboembolism prevention strategies in hospitalized patients: a systematic review
Published in
Critical Care, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11241
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thirugnanam, Subarna, Pinto, Ruxandra, Cook, Deborah J, Geerts, William H, Fowler, Robert A

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence-based guidelines for venous thromboembolism prevention, substantial variability is found in practice. Many economic evaluations of new drugs for thromboembolism prevention do not occur prospectively with efficacy studies and are sponsored by the manufacturers, raising the possibility of bias. We performed a systematic review of economic analyses of venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized patients to inform clinicians and policy makers about cost-effectiveness and the potential influence of sponsorship. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Databases, ACP Journal Club, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, from 1946 to September 2011. We extracted data on study characteristics, quality, costs, and efficacy. RESULTS: From 5,180 identified studies, 39 met eligibility and quality criteria. Each addressed pharmacologic prevention: low-molecular-weight heparins versus placebo (five), unfractionated heparin (12), warfarin (eight), one or another agents (five); fondaparinux versus enoxaparin (11); and rivaroxaban and dabigatran versus enoxaparin (two). Low-molecular-weight heparins were most economically attractive among most medical and surgical patients, whereas fondaparinux was favored for orthopedic patients. Fondaparinux was associated with increased bleeding events. Newer agents rivaroxaban and dabigatran may offer additional value. Of all economic evaluations, 64% were supported by manufacturers of a "new" agent. The new agent had a favorable outcome in 38 (97.4%) of 39 evaluations [95% confidence interval [CI] (86.5 to 99.9)]. Among studies supported by a pharmaceutical company, the sponsored medication was economically attractive in 24 (96.0%) of 25 [95% CI, 80.0 to 99.9)]. We could not detect a consistent bias in outcome based on sponsorship; however, only a minority of studies were unsponsored. CONCLUSION: Low-molecular-weight heparins and fondaparinux are the most economically attractive drugs for venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized patients. Approximately two thirds of evaluations were supported by the manufacturer of the new agent; such drugs were likely to be reported as economically favorable.

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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Chile 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
France 1 1%
Slovenia 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 72 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 18%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Postgraduate 10 13%
Other 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 53%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Mathematics 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,470
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,454
of 6,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,925
of 244,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#173
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 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 6,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 244,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.