↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Oral versus intravenous iron therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and iron deficiency with and without anemia in Germany – a real-world evidence analysis

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Oral versus intravenous iron therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and iron deficiency with and without anemia in Germany – a real-world evidence analysis
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s150900
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jürgen Stein, Jennifer Scarlet Haas, Siew Hwa Ong, Kathrin Borchert, Thomas Hardt, Elmira Lechat, Kerry Nip, Douglas Foerster, Sebastian Braun, Daniel C Baumgart

Abstract

Iron-deficiency anemia and iron deficiency are common comorbidities associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) resulting in impaired quality of life and high health care costs. Intravenous iron has shown clinical benefit compared to oral iron therapy. This study aimed to compare health care outcomes and costs after oral vs intravenous iron treatment for IBD patients with iron deficiency or iron deficiency anemia (ID/A) in Germany. IBD patients with ID/A were identified by ICD-10-GM codes and newly commenced iron treatment via ATC codes in 2013 within the InGef (formerly Health Risk Institute) research claims database. Propensity score matching was performed to balance both treatment groups. Non-observable covariates were adjusted by applying the difference-in-differences (DID) approach. In 2013, 589 IBD patients with ID/A began oral and 442 intravenous iron treatment. After matching, 380 patients in each treatment group were analyzed. The intravenous group had fewer all-cause hospitalizations (37% vs 48%) and ID/A-related hospitalizations (5% vs 14%) than the oral iron group. The 1-year preobservation period comparison revealed significant health care cost differences between both groups. After adjusting for cost differences by DID method, total health care cost savings in the intravenous iron group were calculated to be €367. While higher expenditure for medication (€1,876) was observed in the intravenous iron group, the inpatient setting achieved most cost savings (€1,887). IBD patients receiving intravenous iron were less frequently hospitalized and incurred lower total health care costs compared to patients receiving oral iron. Higher expenditures for pharmaceuticals were compensated by cost savings in other domains.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 15 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#290
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,151
of 450,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 450,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.