Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31650223›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of public health2019

Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: a scoping review.

Miriam Kasztura, Aude Richard, Nefti-Eboni Bempong, Dejan Loncar, Antoine Flahault

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. How accurate should a precision medical test be to meet cost-effectiveness.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Microsimulation Estimates of Decision Uncertainty and Value of Information Are Biased but Consistent.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Miriam KaszturaDepartment of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland. mkasztura@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5017-4605
Aude RichardInstitute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nefti-Eboni BempongInstitute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dejan LoncarInstitute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Antoine FlahaultInstitute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of Geneva · CHBern University of Applied Sciences · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrecision medicine (PM) aims to improve patient outcomes by stratifying or individualizing diagnosis and treatment decisions. Previous reviews found inconclusive evidence as to the cost-effectiveness of PM. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe current research findings on the cost-effectiveness of PM and to identify characteristics of cost-effective interventions.

methodsWe searched PubMed with a combination of terms related to PM and economic evaluations and included studies published between 2014 and 2017.

resultsA total of 83 articles were included, of which two-thirds were published in Europe and the USA. The majority of studies concluded that the PM intervention was at least cost-effective compared to usual care. However, the willingness-to-pay thresholds varied widely. Key factors influencing cost-effectiveness included the prevalence of the genetic condition in the target population, costs of genetic testing and companion treatment and the probability of complications or mortality.

conclusionsThis review may help inform decisions about reimbursement, research and development of PM interventions.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPrecision MedicineEconomic evaluationPrecision medicineScoping review

Identifiers

PMID31650223
PMCPMC6867980
OpenAlexW2982211394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.