↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Evaluation of the treatment patterns and economic burden of dysmenorrhea in Japanese women, using a claims database

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of the treatment patterns and economic burden of dysmenorrhea in Japanese women, using a claims database
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s127760
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sayako Akiyama, Erika Tanaka, Olivier Cristeau, Yoshie Onishi, Yutaka Osuga

Abstract

This study aimed to describe treatment patterns and estimate health care resource utilization and associated costs among Japanese women with dysmenorrhea, using a claims database. This was a retrospective analysis using health insurance data from the Japan Medical Data Center, assessing female patients aged 18-49 years with newly diagnosed primary or secondary dysmenorrhea. Treatment pattern analyses focused on hormonal medications, analgesics, hemostatic agents, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and gynecological surgeries. Data were collected on health care resource utilization and costs associated with medications, imaging procedures, and inpatient and outpatient care in both patients and matched controls. The analysis included 6,315 women with dysmenorrhea (3,441 primary; 2,874 secondary). The most commonly prescribed initial therapies were low-dose estrogen progestins (LEPs, 37.7%) and TCM (30.0%), with substantial differences between primary (LEPs: 27.4%, TCM: 38.8%) and secondary (LEPs: 50.2%, TCM: 19.5%) dysmenorrhea cohorts. Surgery was conducted in <5% of all patients. Both primary and secondary cohorts of dysmenorrhea had significantly higher mean total health care costs compared to controls within the 1-year period following diagnosis (Case-primary: 191,680 JPY [1,916 USD]; secondary: 246,488 JPY [2,465 USD], Control-primary: 83,615 JPY [836 USD]; secondary: 90,711 JPY [907 USD]) (p<0.0001). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, these costs were 2.2 and 2.9 times higher for primary and secondary dysmenorrhea cohorts, respectively, compared with matched controls, (both p<0.0001). The main driver of these excess costs was outpatient care, with eight additional physician visits per year among dysmenorrhea patients compared to controls (p<0.0001). Considerable heterogeneity in treatment patterns was observed, with relatively low utilization of LEPs in patients with primary dysmenorrhea and those treated by internal medicine physicians. Total annual health care costs were approximately 2-3 times higher in patients with dysmenorrhea compared to women without the condition.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 4 5%
Professor 4 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 41 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Computer Science 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 43 49%
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 24 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,110,957
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#385
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,268
of 325,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 325,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.