ArticlePharmacoEconomics2015
Concepts of 'personalization' in personalized medicine: implications for economic evaluation.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Approaches to Incorporation of Preferences into Health Economic Models of Genomic Medicine: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis and Conceptual Framework.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Guidance for the Harmonisation and Improvement of Economic Evaluations of Personalised Medicine.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Prevention, Screening, and Treatment Interventions.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Exploring interdisciplinary perspectives on the implementation ofJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Article
- Development of the PICCOTEAM Reference Case for Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Heterogeneity within the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: An application of causal forests.PloS one · 2024Article
- Optimizing outcomes in heart failure: 2022 and beyond.ESC heart failure · 2023Review
- Economics and Precision Medicine.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2023Article
- The ethical challenges of personalized digital health.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- A perspective on life-cycle health technology assessment and real-world evidence for precision oncology in Canada.NPJ precision oncology · 2022Review
- Tools for the Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine: A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Valuing Heterogeneity-Informed Decisions.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Article
- Stakeholder Perspectives on Navigating Evidentiary and Decision Uncertainty in Precision Oncology.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Decision-analytic modeling for early health technology assessment of medical devices - a scoping review.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2022Article
- Clinical and cost outcomes following genomics-informed treatment for advanced cancers.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Polygenic risk scores in the clinic: new perspectives needed on familiar ethical issues.Genome medicine · 2021Article
- Pre-approval incentives to promote adoption of personalized medicine: a theoretical approach.Health economics review · 2019Article
- Precision public health-the Emperor's new clothes.International journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- The Future of Precision Medicine: Potential Impacts for Health Technology Assessment.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Article
- Transcriptomic and genomic profiling of early-stage ovarian carcinomas associated with histotype and overall survival.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Methodological Issues in Assessing the Economic Value of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests: Many Challenges and Not Enough Solutions.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextThis study assesses if, and how, existing methods for economic evaluation are applicable to the evaluation of personalized medicine (PM) and, if not, where extension to methods may be required.
methodsA structured workshop was held with a predefined group of experts (n = 47), and was run using a modified nominal group technique. Workshop findings were recorded using extensive note taking, and summarized using thematic data analysis. The workshop was complemented by structured literature searches.
resultsThe key finding emerging from the workshop, using an economic perspective, was that two distinct, but linked, interpretations of the concept of PM exist (personalization by 'physiology' or 'preferences'). These interpretations involve specific challenges for the design and conduct of economic evaluations. Existing evaluative (extra-welfarist) frameworks were generally considered appropriate for evaluating PM. When 'personalization' is viewed as using physiological biomarkers, challenges include representing complex care pathways; representing spillover effects; meeting data requirements such as evidence on heterogeneity; and choosing appropriate time horizons for the value of further research in uncertainty analysis. When viewed as tailoring medicine to patient preferences, further work is needed regarding revealed preferences, e.g. treatment (non)adherence; stated preferences, e.g. risk interpretation and attitude; consideration of heterogeneity in preferences; and the appropriate framework (welfarism vs. extra-welfarism) to incorporate non-health benefits.
conclusionsIdeally, economic evaluations should take account of both interpretations of PM and consider physiology and preferences. It is important for decision makers to be cognizant of the issues involved with the economic evaluation of PM to appropriately interpret the evidence and target future research funding.
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.