↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Impact of patient adherence on the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive tests for the initial diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Impact of patient adherence on the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive tests for the initial diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in the United States
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s93320
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan H Boklage, Allen W Mangel, Varun Ramamohan, Deirdre Mladsi, Tao Wang

Abstract

Previous US-based economic models of noninvasive tests for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection did not consider patient adherence or downstream costs of continuing infection. This analysis evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of the urea breath test (UBT), fecal antigen test (FAT), and serology for diagnosis of H. pylori infection after incorporating information regarding test adherence. A decision-analytic model incorporating adherence information evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the UBT, FAT, and serology for diagnosis of H. pylori infection. Positive test results led to first-line triple therapy; no further action was taken for nonadherence or negative results. Excess lifetime costs and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for patients with continuing H. pylori infection. In the base-case scenario with estimated adherence rates of 86%, 48%, and 86% for the UBT, monoclonal FAT, and serology, respectively, corresponding expected total costs were US$424.99, $466.41, and $404.98/patient. Test costs were higher for the UBT, but were fully or partially offset by higher excess lifetime costs for the monoclonal FAT and serology. The QALYs gained/patient with the UBT vs monoclonal FAT and serology were 0.86 and 0.27, respectively. The UBT was dominant vs the monoclonal FAT, leading to lower costs and higher QALYs; the UBT was cost-effective vs serology (incremental cost/QALY gained $74). Based on a comprehensive modeled analysis that included consideration of patient test adherence and long-term consequences resulting from continuing H. pylori infection, the UBT provided the greatest economic value among noninvasive tests for diagnosis of H. pylori infection, because of high patient adherence and excellent test performance.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 20%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 37%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Unspecified 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 7 23%
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 22 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,782,514
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,166
of 1,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,679
of 393,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#20
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 393,571 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 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.