Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33214711›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2021

Evaluating the resource implications of different service delivery models for offering additional genomic findings.

Martin Vu, Koen Degeling, Melissa Martyn, Elly Lynch, Belinda Chong, Clara Gaff, Maarten J IJzerman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluation of a two-step model of opportunistic genomic screening.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024
    Article
  3. Secondary (additional) findings from the 100,000 Genomes Project: Disease manifestation, health care outcomes, and costs of disclosure.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Martin VuCentre for Cancer Research and Centre for Health Policy, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Koen DegelingCentre for Cancer Research and Centre for Health Policy, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Melissa MartynMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Elly LynchMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Belinda ChongMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Clara GaffMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Maarten J IJzermanCentre for Cancer Research and Centre for Health Policy, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. maarten.ijzerman@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the resource implications of different delivery models for the provision of additional findings (AF) in genomics from a health-care purchaser perspective.

methodsData from the Additional Findings study were used to develop and validate a discrete event simulation model that represented the pathway of delivering AF. Resource implications were estimated by microcosting the consultations, sample verifications, bioinformatics, curation, and multidisciplinary case review meetings. A proof-of-concept model was used to generate costing, and then the simulation model was varied to assess the impact of an automated analysis pipeline, use of telehealth consultation, full automation with electronic decision support, and prioritizing case review for cases with pathogenic variants.

resultsFor the proof-of-concept delivery model, the average total cost to report AF was US$430 per patient irrespective of result pathogenicity (95% confidence interval [CI] US$375-US$489). However, the cost of per AF diagnosis was US$4349 (95% CI US$3794-US$4953). Alternative approaches to genetic counseling (telehealth, decision support materials) and to multidisciplinary case review (pathogenic AF cases only) lowered the total per patient cost of AF analysis and reporting by 41-51%.

conclusionResources required to provide AF can be reduced substantially by implementing alternative approaches to counseling and multidisciplinary case review.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareGenomicsHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.