Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24488576›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2014

Methods for identifying the cost-effective case definition cut-off for sequential monitoring tests: an extension of Phelps and Mushlin.

Roberta Longo, Paul Baxter, Peter Hall, Jenny Hewison, Mehran Afshar, Geoff Hall, Christopher McCabe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Roberta LongoLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Paul Baxter
Peter Hall
Jenny Hewison
Mehran Afshar
Geoff Hall
Christopher McCabe

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDepartment of Health RP-PG-0707-10101Medical Research Council MR/L01629X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The arrival of personalized medicine in the clinic means that treatment decisions will increasingly rely on test results. The challenge of limited healthcare resources means that the dissemination of these technologies will be dependent on their value in relation to their cost, i.e., their cost effectiveness. Phelps and Mushlin have described how to optimize tests to meet a cost-effectiveness target. However, when tests are applied repeatedly the case mix of the patients tested changes with each administration, and this impacts upon the value of each subsequent test administration. In this article, we present a modification of Phelps and Mushlin's framework for diagnostic tests; to identify the cost-effective cut-off for monitoring tests. Using the Ca125 test monitoring for relapse in ovarian cancer, we show how the repeated use of the initial cut-off can lead to a substantially increased false-negative rate compared with the monitoring cut-off-over 4% higher than in this example-with the associated harms for individual and population health.

Indexed as

Decision MakingCA-125 AntigenCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFalse Negative ReactionsFemaleHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalOvarian NeoplasmsPrecision MedicineCA-125 Antigen

Identifiers

PMID24488576
PMCPMC4407016

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.