1,721,043 research outputs found
Estimation of the cost of MS in Europe – Extrapolations from a multinational cost study
No full textThe present study aims at estimating the total cost of MS in Europe based on actual cost data from nine countries and published epidemiological evidence. The epidemiological data are reported as 12 months prevalence estimates and cost data calculated as annual cost per patient at given levels of disease severity. Cost data are extrapolated to the rest of Europe based on a model, using economic indexes adjusting for price level differences in different sectors between countries. The aggregated annual cost estimates are presented in Euro for 2005. In 28 European countries with a population of 466 million, an estimated 380 000 individuals are affected by MS. The total annual cost of MS in Europe is estimated at ∈12.5 billion in year 2005, corresponding to a cost of ∈27 per European inhabitant. Direct costs represent slightly more than half of the total cost (∈6.0 billion). Informal care is estimated at ∈3.2 billion, and indirect costs due to morbidity at ∈3.2 billion. Thus, the largest co..
Estimating the cost of illness in EUROPE - A model with multiple sclerosis as an example
No full text
Estimating the cost of epilepsy in Europe: A review with economic modelling
No full textPurpose: Based on available epidemiologic, health economic, and international population statistics literature, the cost of epilepsy in Europe was estimated. Methods: Europe was defined as the 25 European Union member countries, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. Guidelines for epidemiological studies on epilepsy were used for a case definition. A bottom-up prevalence-based cost-of-illness approach, the societal perspective for including the cost items, and the human capital approach as valuation principle for indirect costs were used. The cost estimates were based on selected studies with common methodology and valuation principles. Results: The estimated prevalence of epilepsy in Europe in 2004 was 4.3-7.8 per 1,000. The estimated total cost of the disease in Europe was €15.5 billion in 2004, indirect cost being the single most dominant cost category (€8.6 billion). Direct health care costs were €2.8 billion, outpatient care comprising the largest part (€1.3 billion). Direct nonmedica..
Cost of Brain Disorders in Italy: a Review
No full textBrain disorders represent 35% of the total disease burden in Europe and 37% of the total disease burden in European regions with very low child mortality and low adult mortality; the latter group includes Italy. The negative socioeconomic impact of this burden is reflected in two fundamental issues: consumption of resources and state of health. In recent years, the European Brain Council (EBC), a co-ordinating council formed by European organisations and patient associations in neurological disorders, has encouraged and supported projects aimed at analysing the socioeconomic burden of brain disorders in Europe. Within the EBC, the pan-European study on Cost of Disorders of the Brain in Europe (CDBE) aimed at reporting the best possible estimates of the societal cost of 12 brain disorders (addiction, affective disorders, anxiety disorders, tumours, dementia, epilepsy, migraine and other headaches, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, psychotic disorders, stroke and trauma) based on ..
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
