SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
A Systematic Review of the Value Assessment Frameworks Used within Health Technology Assessment of Omics Technologies and Their Actual Adoption from HTA Agencies.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Value-Based Evaluation Framework for Guiding the Adoption and Scale-Up of Cancer Genomics Interventions.Public health genomics · 2026Article
- Prognosis, treatment decision-making and value: A qualitative exploration of the emerging role of breast cancer prognostic assays.PloS one · 2025Article
- Advancing hospital-based health technology assessment: evaluating genomic panel contracting strategies for blood tumors through a multimethodology.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Decision impact studies, evidence of clinical utility for genomic assays in cancer: A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Evaluating genetic and genomic tests for heritable conditions in Australia: lessons learnt from health technology assessments.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- Delivering precision oncology to patients with cancer.Nature medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOmics technologies, enabling the measurements of genes (genomics), mRNA (transcriptomics), proteins (proteomics) and metabolites (metabolomics), are valuable tools for personalized decision-making. We aimed to identify the existing value assessment frameworks used by health technology assessment (HTA) doers for the evaluation of omics technologies through a systematic review.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched to retrieve potential eligible articles published until 31 May 2020 in English. Additionally, through a desk research in HTA agencies' repositories, we retrieved the published reports on the practical use of these frameworks.
resultsTwenty-three articles were included in the systematic review. Twenty-two frameworks, which addressed genetic and/or genomic technologies, were described. Most of them derived from the ACCE framework and evaluated the domains of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility. We retrieved forty-five reports, which mainly addressed the commercial transcriptomic prognostics and next generation sequencing, and evaluated clinical effectiveness, economic aspects, and description and technical characteristics.
conclusionsA value assessment framework for the HTA evaluation of omics technologies is not standardized and accepted, yet. Our work reports that the most evaluated domains are analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility and economic aspects.
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.