ArticleGenomic medicine2007
Diagnosing idiopathic learning disability: a cost-effectiveness analysis of microarray technology in the National Health Service of the United Kingdom.
Article in Genomic medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allocating healthcare resources to genomic testing in Canada: latest evidence and current challenges.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Turkish Patients with Unexplained Developmental Delay and Intellectual Developmental Disorders.Noro psikiyatri arsivi · 2020Article
- Cost Effectiveness of Karyotyping, Chromosomal Microarray Analysis, and Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing of Patients with Unexplained Global Developmental Delay or Intellectual Disability.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2018Article
- A microcosting and cost-consequence analysis of clinical genomic testing strategies in autism spectrum disorder.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Article
- Routine chromosomal microarray analysis is necessary in Korean patients with unexplained developmental delay/mental retardation/autism spectrum disorder.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2015Article
- Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies.Pharmacogenomics · 2013Review
- Validation and implementation of array comparative genomic hybridisation as a first line test in place of postnatal karyotyping for genome imbalance.Molecular cytogenetics · 2010Article
- Detection of pathogenic copy number variants in children with idiopathic intellectual disability using 500 K SNP array genomic hybridization.BMC genomics · 2009Article
- Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridization: uncovering tumor susceptibility in individuals with developmental delay.The Journal of pediatrics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Array based comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) is a powerful technique for detecting clinically relevant genome imbalance and can offer 40 to > 1000 times the resolution of karyotyping. Indeed, idiopathic learning disability (ILD) studies suggest that a genome-wide aCGH approach makes 10-15% more diagnoses involving genome imbalance than karyotyping. Despite this, aCGH has yet to be implemented as a routine NHS service. One significant obstacle is the perception that the technology is prohibitively expensive for most standard NHS clinical cytogenetics laboratories. To address this, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of aCGH versus standard cytogenetic analysis for diagnosing idiopathic learning disability (ILD) in the NHS. Cost data from four participating genetics centres were collected and analysed. In a single test comparison, the average cost of aCGH was pound442 and the average cost of karyotyping was pound117 with array costs contributing most to the cost difference. This difference was not a key barrier when the context of follow up diagnostic tests was considered. Indeed, in a hypothetical cohort of 100 ILD children, aCGH was found to cost less per diagnosis ( pound3,118) than a karyotyping and multi-telomere FISH approach ( pound4,957). We conclude that testing for genomic imbalances in ILD using microarray technology is likely to be cost-effective because long-term savings can be made regardless of a positive (diagnosis) or negative result. Earlier diagnoses save costs of additional diagnostic tests. Negative results are cost-effective in minimising follow-up test choice. The use of aCGH in routine clinical practice warrants serious consideration by healthcare providers.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.