ArticleBMJ open2013
Development of an economic evaluation of diagnostic strategies: the case of monogenic diabetes.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The use of precision diagnostics for monogenic diabetes: a systematic review and expert opinion.Communications medicine · 2023Article
- Strategies to identify individuals with monogenic diabetes: results of an economic evaluation.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Economics of Genetic Testing for Diabetes.Current diabetes reports · 2019Review
- The rise of the genome and personalised medicine.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2017Review
- Population-Based Assessment of a Biomarker-Based Screening Pathway to Aid Diagnosis of Monogenic Diabetes in Young-Onset Patients.Diabetes care · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the development process for defining an appropriate model structure for the economic evaluation of test-treatment strategies for patients with monogenic diabetes (caused by mutations in the GCK, HNF1A or HNF4A genes).
designExperts were consulted to identify and define realistic test-treatment strategies and care pathways. A systematic assessment of published diabetes models was undertaken to inform the model structure.
settingNational Health Service in England and Wales.
participantsExperts in monogenic diabetes whose collective expertise spans the length of the patient care pathway. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: A defined model structure, including the test-treatment strategies, and the selection of a published diabetes model appropriate for the economic evaluation of strategies to identify patients with monogenic diabetes.
resultsFive monogenic diabetes test-treatment strategies were defined: no testing of any kind, referral for genetic testing based on clinical features as noted by clinicians, referral for genetic testing based on the results of a clinical prediction model, referral for genetic testing based on the results of biochemical and immunological tests, referral for genetic testing for all patients with a diagnosis of diabetes under the age of 30 years. The systematic assessment of diabetes models identified the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (IMS CDM) as a good candidate for modelling the long-term outcomes and costs of the test-treatment strategies for monogenic diabetes. The short-term test-treatment events will be modelled using a decision tree which will feed into the IMS CDM.
conclusionsDefining a model structure for any economic evaluation requires decisions to be made. Expert consultation and the explicit use of critical appraisal can inform these decisions. Although arbitrary choices have still been made, decision modelling allows investigation into such choices and the impact of assumptions that have to be made due to a lack of data.
Indexed as
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.