Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26560056›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Evidence used in model-based economic evaluations for evaluating pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic tests: a systematic review protocol.

Jaime L Peters, Chris Cooper, James Buchanan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Jaime L PetersEvidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement (ESMI), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Chris CooperEvidence Synthesis & Modelling for Health Improvement (ESMI), University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
James BuchananNuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDecision models can be used to conduct economic evaluations of new pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic tests to ensure they offer value for money to healthcare systems. These models require a great deal of evidence, yet research suggests the evidence used is diverse and of uncertain quality. By conducting a systematic review, we aim to investigate the test-related evidence used to inform decision models developed for the economic evaluation of genetic tests. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EEDs to identify model-based economic evaluations of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic tests. The search will not be limited by language or date. Title and abstract screening will be conducted independently by 2 reviewers, with screening of full texts and data extraction conducted by 1 reviewer, and checked by another. Characteristics of the decision problem, the decision model and the test evidence used to inform the model will be extracted. Specifically, we will identify the reported evidence sources for the test-related evidence used, describe the study design and how the evidence was identified. A checklist developed specifically for decision analytic models will be used to critically appraise the models described in these studies. Variations in the test evidence used in the decision models will be explored across the included studies, and we will identify gaps in the evidence in terms of both quantity and quality. DISSEMINATION: The findings of this work will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal publication and at national and international conferences.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicResearch DesignChecklistCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHumansPharmacogeneticsSystematic Reviews as TopicGENETICSHEALTH ECONOMICSSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID26560056
PMCPMC4654339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.