Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27080370›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2016

Genomic Sequencing Procedure Microcosting Analysis and Health Economic Cost-Impact Analysis: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Linda M Sabatini, Charles Mathews, Devon Ptak, Shivang Doshi, Katherine Tynan, Madhuri R Hegde, Tara L Burke, Aaron D Bossler

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Are whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing approaches cost-effective? A systematic review of the literature.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Linda M SabatiniGenomic Sequencing Procedures Pricing Project Oversight Committee, a Working Group of the Association for Molecular Pathology Economic Affairs Committee, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Illinois. Electronic address: lsabatini@northshore.org.
Charles MathewsBoston Healthcare Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.
Devon PtakBoston Healthcare Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.
Shivang DoshiBoston Healthcare Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.
Katherine TynanTynan Consulting, San Francisco, California.
Madhuri R HegdeGenomic Sequencing Procedures Pricing Project Oversight Committee, a Working Group of the Association for Molecular Pathology Economic Affairs Committee, Bethesda, Maryland; Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Tara L BurkeAssociation for Molecular Pathology, Bethesda, Maryland.
Aaron D BosslerGenomic Sequencing Procedures Pricing Project Oversight Committee, a Working Group of the Association for Molecular Pathology Economic Affairs Committee, Bethesda, Maryland; Department of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.

Funding

Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Douglas Robert Spitz · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing use of advanced nucleic acid sequencing technologies for clinical diagnostics and therapeutics has made vital understanding the costs of performing these procedures and their value to patients, providers, and payers. The Association for Molecular Pathology invested in a cost and value analysis of specific genomic sequencing procedures (GSPs) newly coded by the American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology Editorial Panel. Cost data and work effort, including the development and use of data analysis pipelines, were gathered from representative laboratories currently performing these GSPs. Results were aggregated to generate representative cost ranges given the complexity and variability of performing the tests. Cost-impact models for three clinical scenarios were generated with assistance from key opinion leaders: impact of using a targeted gene panel in optimizing care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, use of a targeted gene panel in the diagnosis and management of patients with sensorineural hearing loss, and exome sequencing in the diagnosis and management of children with neurodevelopmental disorders of unknown genetic etiology. Each model demonstrated value by either reducing health care costs or identifying appropriate care pathways. The templates generated will aid laboratories in assessing their individual costs, considering the value structure in their own patient populations, and contributing their data to the ongoing dialogue regarding the impact of GSPs on improving patient care.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCosts and Cost AnalysisExomeGenomicsHealth Care CostsHearing Loss, SensorineuralHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLung NeoplasmsModels, EconomicNeurodevelopmental DisordersSequence Analysis, DNABiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID27080370
PMCPMC7212689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.