Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34570356›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2022

Evaluating genetic and genomic tests for heritable conditions in Australia: lessons learnt from health technology assessments.

Sarah Norris, Andrea Belcher, Kirsten Howard, Robyn L Ward

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Resource allocation in genetic and genomic medicine.Journal of community genetics · 2022
    Article
  11. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah NorrisMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics and School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. sarah.norris@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4733-6906
Andrea BelcherAustralian Genomics, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3331-5637
Kirsten HowardMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics and School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0918-7540
Robyn L WardUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6877-8906
The University of Sydney · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT1113531
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is an independent non-statutory committee established by the Australian government to provide recommendations on public reimbursement of technologies and services, other than pharmaceuticals. MSAC has established approaches for undertaking health technology assessment (HTA) of investigative services and codependent technologies. In 2016, MSAC published its clinical utility card (CUC) Proforma, an additional tool to guide assessments of genetic testing for heritable conditions. We undertook a review and narrative synthesis of information extracted from all MSAC assessments of genetic testing for heritable conditions completed since 2016, regardless of the HTA approach taken. Ten assessments met our inclusion criteria, covering a range of testing methods (from gene panels to whole-exome sequencing) and purposes (including molecular diagnosis, genetic risk assessment, identification of congenital anomaly syndromes, and carrier screening). This analysis identified a range of methodological and policy challenges such as how to incorporate patient and societal preferences for the health and non-health outcomes of genomic testing, how best to capture the concept of co-production of utility, and how to engage clinicians as referrers for genomics tests whilst at the same time ensuring equity of access to a geographically dispersed population. A further challenge related to how qualitative assessments of patient and community needs influenced the evidence thresholds against which decisions were made. These concepts should be considered for incorporation within the value assessment frameworks used by HTA agencies around the world.

Indexed as

CostEvaluationGenomicsHealth technologyHeritableValue

Identifiers

PMID34570356
PMCPMC9530105
OpenAlexW3202947100

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.