↓ Skip to main content

Quality of life and costs of spasticity treatment in German stroke patients

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Quality of life and costs of spasticity treatment in German stroke patients
Published in
Health Economics Review, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13561-016-0107-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reinhard Rychlik, Fabian Kreimendahl, Nicole Schnur, Judith Lambert-Baumann, Dirk Dressler

Abstract

To gather data about the medical and non-medical health service in patients suffering from post-stroke spasticity of the upper limb and evaluate treatment effectiveness and tolerability as well as costs over the treatment period of one year. Prospective, non-interventional, multicenter, parallel-group study comparing effectivenessand costs of incobotulinumtoxinA (INCO) treatment (n = 118) to conventional (CON) antispastic therapy (n = 110) for upper limb spasticity after stroke in 47 clinical practices across Germany over a 1-year treatment period. IncobotulinumtoxinA was applied according to the individual treatment algorithms of each participating site and additional antispastic treatments were allowed. Primary efficacy objective was the reduction of the muscle tone measured by Ashworth scale. Responder analyses and logistic regressions were performed. Quality of life, measured by SF-12 questionnaire and functional disability were assessed. Besides calculating treatment costs, a cost-utility analysis was performed. Responder rates of all muscle groups of the upper extremities were significantly higher in the treatment group (62.9-86.2 % vs. 15.5-26.9 %, p < 0.01). Total health service costs were twice as high in the INCO group, however cost-utility ratios were consistently superior compared to the control group. Lowest incremental costs were documented to improve the "physical health" dimension in quality of life. Higher responder rates, higher increases in quality of life and superior cost-utility ratios in the BoNT/A-treatment group underline guideline recommendations for botulinum toxin A treatment in focal or segmental spasticity. Results may partially be influenced by different patient demographics or disease severity at study entry.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Master 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Engineering 5 7%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 16 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,141,749
of 23,322,966 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#127
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,870
of 356,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,966 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 442 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 356,602 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.