↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A benefit–risk assessment model for statins using multicriteria decision analysis based on a discrete choice experiment in Korean patients

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
A benefit–risk assessment model for statins using multicriteria decision analysis based on a discrete choice experiment in Korean patients
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s100438
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ji-Hye Byun, Sun-Hong Kwon, Ji-Hye Ha, Eui-Kyung Lee

Abstract

The benefit-risk balance for drugs can alter post approval owing to additional data on efficacy or adverse events. This study developed a quantitative benefit-risk assessment (BRA) model for statins using multicriteria decision analysis with discrete choice experiments and compared a recent BRA with that at the time of approval. Following a systematic review of the literature, the benefit criteria within the statin BRA model were defined as a reduction in the plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and a reduction in myocardial infarction incidence; the risk criteria were hepatotoxicity (Liv) and fatal rhabdomyolysis (Rha). The scores for these criteria were estimated using mixed treatment comparison methods. Weighting was calculated from a discrete choice experiment involving 203 Korean patients. The scores and weights were integrated to produce an overall value representing the benefit-risk balance, and sensitivity analyses were conducted. In this BRA model, low-density lipoprotein (relative importance [RI]: 37.50%) was found to be a more important benefit criterion than myocardial infarction (RI: 35.43%), and Liv (RI: 16.28%) was a more important risk criterion than Rha (RI: 10.79%). Patients preferred atorvastatin, and the preference ranking of cerivastatin and simvastatin was switched post approval because of the emergence of additional risk information related to cerivastatin. A quantitative statin BRA model confirmed that the preference ranking of statins changed post approval because of the identification of additional benefits or risks.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 20%
Other 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 24%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 11 44%
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 14 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,674,485
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,070
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,021
of 353,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#45
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 353,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.