ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2016
Comparative Effectiveness of Biomarkers to Target Cancer Treatment: Modeling Implications for Survival and Costs.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Microsimulation Modeling for Health Decision Sciences Using R: A Tutorial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiomarkers used at the time of diagnosis to tailor treatment decisions may diffuse into clinical practice before data become available on whether biomarker testing reduces cancer mortality. In the interim, quantitative estimates of the mortality impact of testing are needed to assess the value of these diagnostic biomarkers. These estimates are typically generated by customized models that are resource intensive to build and apply.
methodsWe developed a user-friendly system of models for Cancer Translation of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CANTRANce) to model the mortality impact of cancer interventions. The Diagnostic Biomarker module of this system projects the mortality impact of testing for a diagnostic biomarker, given data on how testing affects treatment recommendations. Costs and quality-of-life outcomes may also be modeled. We applied the Diagnostic Biomarker module to 2 case studies to demonstrate its capabilities.
resultsThe user interface (http://www.fhcrc.org/cantrance) allows comparative effectiveness researchers to use the Diagnostic Biomarker module of CANTRANce. Our case studies indicate that the model produces estimates on par with those generated by customized models and is a strong tool for quickly generating novel projections. LIMITATIONS: The simple structure that makes CANTRANce user-friendly also constrains the complexity with which cancer progression can be modeled. The quality of the results rests on the quality of the input data, which may pertain to small or dissimilar populations or suffer from informative censoring.
conclusionsThe Diagnostic Biomarker module of CANTRANce is a novel public resource that can provide timely insights into the expected mortality impact of testing for diagnostic biomarkers. The model projections should be useful for understanding the long-term potential of emerging diagnostic biomarkers.
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.