↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Health economic evaluations of medical devices in the People's Republic of China: A systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Health economic evaluations of medical devices in the People's Republic of China: A systematic literature review
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, April 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s78752
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rongrong Zhang, Farhang Modaresi, Oleg Borisenko

Abstract

The objective of this study is to identify and review the methodological quality of health economic evaluations of medical devices performed in the People's Republic of China. To our knowledge, no such investigations have been performed to date. A systematic literature review involving searches of Medline, Medline In-Process, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center, and the Wanfang Database was performed. The search spanned the period from 1990 to 2013. Studies on health economic evaluations of medical devices, in-vitro diagnostics, procedures, and the use of medical devices in Chinese health care settings were included. Full-text articles and conference abstracts in English and Chinese were included. Fifty-seven publications were included, 26 (46%) of which were in English and 31 (54%) of which were in Chinese. The included publications covered a wide range of clinical areas, such as surgery (n=23, 40%), screening (n=9, 16%), imaging use (n=6, 11%), kidney intervention (n=4, 7%), and nine other technological areas. Most of the studies (n=31, 54%) were cost analyses. Among the others, 13 (50%) studies used modeling, and another 13 (50%) were within-trial evaluations. Among studies that used modeling, eleven (85%) conducted sensitivity analyses, six of which had one-way sensitivity analysis, whereas one conducted both one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses; four of these eleven modeling-based analyses included probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was reported in ten (18%) studies, eight of which were screening studies. The remaining two modeling studies were in areas of imaging and oncology. This study indicates that there are major limitations and deficiencies in the health economic evaluations on medical devices performed in the People's Republic of China. Further efforts are required from different stakeholders - academic, governmental, and privatized - to improve health economic research capacity and to put it to use when informative decisions are made in the health care setting.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 16 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 17 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,857,628
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#104
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,021
of 279,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 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 well, scoring higher than 78% 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 279,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.