↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The cost utility and budget impact of adjuvant racecadotril for acute diarrhea in children in Thailand

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
The cost utility and budget impact of adjuvant racecadotril for acute diarrhea in children in Thailand
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s140902
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamlyn Anne Rautenberg, Ute Zerwes

Abstract

To evaluate the cost utility and the budget impact of adjuvant racecadotril for the treatment of acute diarrhea in children in Thailand. A cost utility model has been adapted to the context of Thailand to evaluate racecadotril plus oral rehydration solution (R+ORS) versus oral rehydration solution (ORS) alone for acute diarrhea in children <5 years old. The decision tree Excel model evaluates the costs and effects (quality-adjusted life years) over a 6-day time horizon from a public health care payer's perspective in Thailand. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and budget impact analysis have been undertaken. According to the cost utility model, the intervention (R+ORS) is less costly and more effective than the comparator (ORS) for the base case with a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -2,481,390฿ for the intervention. According to the budget impact analysis (assuming an increase of 5% market share for R+ORS over 5 years), the year-on-year reduction for diarrhea as a percentage of the total health care expenditure is -0.0027%, resulting in potential net cost savings of -35,632,482฿ over 5 years. Subject to the assumptions and limitations of the models, adjuvant racecadotril versus ORS alone is potentially cost-effective for children in Thailand and uptake could translate into savings for the Thailand public health care system.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 28%
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 15 35%
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 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#17,451,209
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#329
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,763
of 327,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 327,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.