↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cost-effectiveness analysis of online hemodiafiltration versus high-flux hemodialysis

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 524)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of online hemodiafiltration versus high-flux hemodialysis
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s109649
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Ramponi, Claudio Ronco, Giacomo Mason, Enrico Rettore, Daniele Marcelli, Francesca Martino, Mauro Neri, Alejandro Martin-Malo, Bernard Canaud, Francesco Locatelli

Abstract

Clinical studies suggest that hemodiafiltration (HDF) may lead to better clinical outcomes than high-flux hemodialysis (HF-HD), but concerns have been raised about the cost-effectiveness of HDF versus HF-HD. Aim of this study was to investigate whether clinical benefits, in terms of longer survival and better health-related quality of life, are worth the possibly higher costs of HDF compared to HF-HD. The analysis comprised a simulation based on the combined results of previous published studies, with the following steps: 1) estimation of the survival function of HF-HD patients from a clinical trial and of HDF patients using the risk reduction estimated in a meta-analysis; 2) simulation of the survival of the same sample of patients as if allocated to HF-HD or HDF using three-state Markov models; and 3) application of state-specific health-related quality of life coefficients and differential costs derived from the literature. Several Monte Carlo simulations were performed, including simulations for patients with different risk profiles, for example, by age (patients aged 40, 50, and 60 years), sex, and diabetic status. Scatter plots of simulations in the cost-effectiveness plane were produced, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were computed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €6,982/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was estimated for the baseline cohort of 50-year-old male patients. Given the commonly accepted threshold of €40,000/QALY, HDF is cost-effective. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that HDF is cost-effective with a probability of ~81% at a threshold of €40,000/QALY. It is fundamental to measure the outcome also in terms of quality of life. HDF is more cost-effective for younger patients. HDF can be considered cost-effective compared to HF-HD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Psychology 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 21 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,323,081
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#34
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,812
of 348,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#2
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 348,951 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 92% of its contemporaries.