Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30248275›Full record

ReviewMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2018

Toward Alignment in the Reporting of Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests and Biomarkers: The AGREEDT Checklist.

Michelle M A Kip, Maarten J IJzerman, Martin Henriksson, Tracy Merlin, Milton C Weinstein, Charles E Phelps, Ron Kusters, Hendrik Koffijberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. A systematic review of health economic evaluation quality assessment instruments for medical devices.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Michelle M A KipDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Maarten J IJzermanDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Martin HenrikssonDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Tracy MerlinAdelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Milton C WeinsteinDepartment of Health Policy and Management Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Charles E PhelpsDepartments of Economics, Political Science, and Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Ron KustersDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Hendrik KoffijbergDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesGeneral frameworks for conducting and reporting health economic evaluations are available but not specific enough to cover the intricacies of the evaluation of diagnostic tests and biomarkers. Such evaluations are typically complex and model-based because tests primarily affect health outcomes indirectly and real-world data on health outcomes are often lacking. Moreover, not all aspects relevant to the evaluation of a diagnostic test may be known and explicitly considered for inclusion in the evaluation, leading to a loss of transparency and replicability. To address this challenge, this study aims to develop a comprehensive reporting checklist.

methodsThis study consisted of 3 main steps: 1) the development of an initial checklist based on a scoping review, 2) review and critical appraisal of the initial checklist by 4 independent experts, and 3) development of a final checklist. Each item from the checklist is illustrated using an example from previous research.

resultsThe scoping review followed by critical review by the 4 experts resulted in a checklist containing 44 items, which ideally should be considered for inclusion in a model-based health economic evaluation. The extent to which these items were included or discussed in the studies identified in the scoping review varied substantially, with 14 items not being mentioned in ≥47 (75%) of the included studies.

conclusionsThe reporting checklist developed in this study may contribute to improved transparency and completeness of model-based health economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and biomarkers. Use of this checklist is therefore encouraged to enhance the interpretation, comparability, and-indirectly-the validity of the results of such evaluations.

Indexed as

BiomarkersChecklistEvaluation Studies as TopicDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansBiomarkersapprovalbiomarkerschecklistdiagnostic testhealth economic evaluationreporting

Identifiers

PMID30248275
PMCPMC6454580

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.