A cost analysis of inherited colorectal cancer care in Varese Province

Bonfanti, Marzia; Gambino, Maria; Pisani, Salvatore; Carnevali, Ileana; Pinotti, Graziella; Croce, Davide; Capella, Carlo; Sessa, Fausto; Tibiletti, M. G.

doi:10.1016/j.jcpo.2016.03.006

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additional items were created to track, in more detail, important article features that the BMJ checklist did not directly address but have been recommended in other authoritative guidelines (Appendix Table 5). 3,7,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] These features did not contribute to average checklist scores. During analysis, we grouped these additional items, along with select BMJ checklist items that we wished to highlight in more detail, into 3 distinct methodological constructs: perspective, scope, and parameter selection; the use of sensitivity/uncertainty analyses; and reporting transparency.…”

Section: Bmj Checklist and Qualitative Assessment Beyond The Bmj Checklistmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

Johnson

Saylor

Guynn

et al. 2022

Genetics in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018)(2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist. Results: Across the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis. Conclusion:We describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.

show abstract

Section: Bmj Checklist and Qualitative Assessment Beyond The Bmj Checklistmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

Johnson

Saylor

Guynn

et al. 2022

Genetics in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Systematic Review of the Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations in Genetic Screening and Testing for Monogenic Disorders

Johnson¹,

Saylor²,

Guynn³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Understanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examine opportunities for improvement. Methods: We searched Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the BMJ checklist. Results: Across 47 identified studies, there was substantial variation in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulation, comparing between two and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis. Conclusion: We describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection, (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses, and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.

show abstract

A cost analysis of inherited colorectal cancer care in Varese Province

Cited by 2 publications

References 19 publications

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

A Systematic Review of the Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations in Genetic Screening and Testing for Monogenic Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About