↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cost-effectiveness analysis of six therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 524)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of six therapies for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s148195
Pubmed ID
Authors

James C Ulchaker, Melissa S Martinson

Abstract

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis from payers' perspectives of six treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and to examine positioning of these modalities in the marketplace for the best use of health care funds and quality-of-life benefits for patients. The economic analysis was conducted with a Markov model to compare combination prescription drug therapy (ComboRx), minimally invasive therapies (MITs) including convective radiofrequency (RF) water vapor thermal therapy (Rezūm®), conductive RF thermal therapy (Prostiva®), and prostatic urethral lift (UroLift®), and invasive surgical procedures including photovaporization of the prostate (Greenlight® PVP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Effects assessed with International Prostate Symptom Score, adverse events, and re-treatment rates were estimated from medical literature; treatments effects were modeled using a common baseline score. Starting with each therapy, patients' transitions to more intensive therapies when symptoms returned were simulated in 6-month cycles over 2 years. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for pairs of treatments; uncertainty in ICERs was estimated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. ComboRx was least effective and provided one-third of the symptom relief achieved with MITs. UroLift was similar in effectiveness to Prostiva and Rezūm but costs more than twice as much. The cheaper MITs were ~$900 more expensive than the cost of ComboRx generic drugs over 2 years. TURP and PVP provided slightly greater relief of LUTS than MITs at approximately twice the cost over 2 years; typically, they are reserved for treatment of more severe LUTS. The analysis evaluated the costs and symptom relief of six treatment options in the continuum of care from a common baseline of LUTS severity. Identification of treatments for LUTS/BPH that demonstrate cost-effectiveness and provide appreciable symptom relief is paramount as reimbursement for patient care moves from volume-based services to value-based services.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Other 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 35 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 44 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 29 April 2024.
All research outputs
#851,528
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#26
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,010
of 446,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 94% 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 446,361 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them