Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25498779›Full record

ArticleValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2014

Valuations of genetic test information for treatable conditions: the case of colorectal cancer screening.

Vikram Kilambi, F Reed Johnson, Juan Marcos González, Ateesha F Mohamed

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Preferences for Genetic Testing to Predict the Risk of Developing Hereditary Cancer: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Vikram KilambiCenter for Engineering and Health, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA; Health Preference Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC USA.
F Reed JohnsonDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: vkilambi@u.northwestern.edu.
Juan Marcos GonzálezDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Ateesha F MohamedHealth Preference Assessment Group, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC USA.

Funding

UTILIZATION OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE USING GENOMICSP01CA130818 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI PHILLIPS, KATHRYN A · 2008 to 2010
$5.1M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA130818NCI NIH HHS P01CA130818-1A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe value of the information that genetic testing services provide can be questioned for insurance-based health systems. The results of genetic tests oftentimes may not lead to well-defined clinical interventions; however, Lynch syndrome, a genetic mutation for which carriers are at an increased risk for colorectal cancer, can be identified through genetic testing, and meaningful health interventions are available via increased colonoscopic surveillance. Valuations of test information for such conditions ought to account for the full impact of interventions and contingent outcomes.

objectivesTo conduct a discrete-choice experiment to elicit individuals' preferences for genetic test information.

methodsA Web-enabled discrete-choice experiment survey was administered to a representative sample of US residents aged 50 years and older. In addition to specifying expenditures on colonoscopies, respondents were asked to make a series of nine selections between two hypothetical genetic tests or a no-test option under the premise that a relative had Lynch syndrome. The hypothetical genetic tests were defined by the probability of developing colorectal cancer, the probability of a false-negative test result, privacy of the result, and out-of-pocket cost. A model specification identifying necessary interactions was derived from assumptions of risk behavior and the decision context and was estimated using random-parameters logit.

resultsA total of 650 respondents were contacted, and 385 completed the survey. The monetary equivalent of test information was approximately $1800. Expenditures on colonoscopies to reduce mortality risks affected valuations. Respondents with lower income or who reported being employed significantly valued genetic tests more.

conclusionGenetic testing may confer benefits through the impact of subsequent interventions on private individuals.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsChoice BehaviorColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, EconomicPatient PreferenceRisk Assessmentcolorectal cancerdiscrete choice experimentgenetic testingLynch syndrome

Identifiers

PMID25498779
PMCPMC4492688

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.