Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22894140›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2012

Scenario drafting to anticipate future developments in technology assessment.

Valesca P Retèl, Manuela A Joore, Sabine C Linn, Emiel J T Rutgers, Wim H van Harten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Development of the PICCOTEAM Reference Case for Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine.International journal of health policy and management · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Quantifying the Impact of Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations: An Application in Precision Medicine.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Implementing Interventions with Varying Marginal Cost-Effectiveness: An Application in Precision Medicine.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Valesca P RetèlNetherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital (NKI-AVL), Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Plesmanlaan 121, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands.
Manuela A Joore
Sabine C Linn
Emiel J T Rutgers
Wim H van Harten

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth Technology Assessment (HTA) information, and in particular cost-effectiveness data is needed to guide decisions, preferably already in early stages of technological development. However, at that moment there is usually a high degree of uncertainty, because evidence is limited and different development paths are still possible. We developed a multi-parameter framework to assess dynamic aspects of a technology -still in development-, by means of scenario drafting to determine the effects, costs and cost-effectiveness of possible future diffusion patterns. Secondly, we explored the value of this method on the case of the clinical implementation of the 70-gene signature for breast cancer, a gene expression profile for selecting patients who will benefit most from chemotherapy.

methodsTo incorporate process-uncertainty, ten possible scenarios regarding the introduction of the 70-gene signature were drafted with European experts. Out of 5 most likely scenarios, 3 drivers of diffusion (non-compliance, technical failure, and uptake) were quantitatively integrated in a decision-analytical model. For these scenarios, the cost-effectiveness of the 70-gene signature expressed in Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) was compared to clinical guidelines, calculated from the past (2005) until the future (2020).

resultsIn 2005 the ICER was €1,9 million/quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY), meaning that the 70-gene signature was not yet cost-effective compared to the current clinical guideline. The ICER for the 70-gene signature improved over time with a range of €1,9 million to €26,145 in 2010 and €1,9 million to €11,123/QALY in 2020 depending on the separate scenario used. From 2010, the 70-gene signature should be cost-effective, based on the combined scenario. The uptake-scenario had strongest influence on the cost-effectiveness.

conclusionsWhen optimal diffusion of a technology is sought, incorporating process-uncertainty by means of scenario drafting into a decision model may reveal unanticipated developments and can demonstrate a range of possible cost-effectiveness outcomes. The effect of scenarios give additional information on the speed with cost effectiveness might be reached and thus provide a more realistic picture for policy makers, opinion leaders and manufacturers.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesDiffusion of InnovationAntineoplastic AgentsBreast NeoplasmsComputer SimulationCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleForecastingGene Expression ProfilingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHealth Care CostsHumansMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedModels, EconomicAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID22894140
PMCPMC3444406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.