Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20086232›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making

Personalized medicine and genomics: challenges and opportunities in assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and future research priorities.

Rena Conti, David L Veenstra, Katrina Armstrong, Lawrence J Lesko, Scott D Grosse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Trial
  3. Differences in Weight Loss Between Persons on Standard Balanced vs Nutrigenetic Diets in a Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2015
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: a scoping review.International journal of public health · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Economic analyses of genetic tests in personalized medicine: clinical utility first, then cost utility.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rena ContiDepartment of Pediatrics and Center for Health and the Social Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
David L Veenstra
Katrina Armstrong
Lawrence J Lesko
Scott D Grosse

Funding

Oncology R&D: Expanding the Role of Economics to Aid Public PolicyK07CA138906 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI CONTI, RENA MARIE · 2009 to 2013
$672k
A Conference Grant to Support the 29th Annual Meeting of SMDMR13HS017305 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BRYCE, CINDY L · 2007 to 2007
$32k
AHRQ HHS R13 HS017305NCI NIH HHS K07 CA138906
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personalized medicine is health care that tailors interventions to individual variation in risk and treatment response. Although medicine has long strived to achieve this goal, advances in genomics promise to facilitate this process. Relevant to present-day practice is the use of genomic information to classify individuals according to disease susceptibility or expected responsiveness to a pharmacologic treatment and to provide targeted interventions. A symposium at the annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making on 23 October 2007 highlighted the challenges and opportunities posed in translating advances in molecular medicine into clinical practice. A panel of US experts in medical practice, regulatory policy, technology assessment, and the financing and organization of medical innovation was asked to discuss the current state of practice and research on personalized medicine as it relates to their own field. This article reports on the issues raised, discusses potential approaches to meet these challenges, and proposes directions for future work. The case of genetic testing to inform dosing with warfarin, an anticoagulant, is used to illustrate differing perspectives on evidence and decision making for personalized medicine.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDelivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineForecastingGenetic ResearchGenetics, MedicalGenetic TestingGenome, HumanGenomicsHumansPharmacogeneticsPrecision MedicineResearchWarfarinAnticoagulantsWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID20086232
PMCPMC4598076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.