ArticleBMJ open2022
Assessing the cost-effectiveness of precision medicine: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the value for money of precision medicine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
- Financing and health system capacity for precision medicine in Asia: a six country landscape analysis.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- How accurate should a precision medical test be to meet cost-effectiveness.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine in oncology setting in China: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Exploratory Cost-Utility Analysis of a 37-Gene Panel Versus Usual Care to Guide Therapy for Patients with Intermediate-Risk Myeloid Malignancies.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Identification and Application of Emerging Biomarkers in Treatment of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Systematic Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Precision Medicine-Are We There Yet? A Narrative Review of Precision Medicine's Applicability in Primary Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Expanding access to high-cost medicines under the Universal Health Coverage scheme in Thailand: review of current practices and recommendations.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Antibiotic stewardship in the era of precision medicine.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrecision medicine (PM) involves gene testing to identify disease risk, enable early diagnosis or guide therapeutic choice, and targeted gene therapy. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the cost-effectiveness profile of PM stratified by intervention type, identify sources of heterogeneity in the value-for-money of PM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit and CRD databases for studies published in English language or with translation in English between 1 January 2011 and 8 July 2021 on the topic of cost-effectiveness analysis of PM interventions. The focus will be on studies that reported health and economic outcomes. Study quality will be assessed using the Biases in Economic Studies checklist. The incremental net benefit of PM screening, diagnostic, treatment-targeting and therapeutic interventions over conventional strategies will be respectively pooled across studies using a random-effect model if heterogeneity is present, otherwise a fixed-effect model. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on disease area, WHO region and World Bank country-income level. Additionally, we will identify the potential sources of heterogeneity with random-effect meta-regressions. Finally, biases will be detected using jackknife sensitivity analysis, funnel plot assessment and Egger's tests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For this type of study ethics approval or formal consent is not required. The results will be disseminated at various presentations and feedback sessions, in conference abstracts and manuscripts that will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021272956.
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.