ArticlePharmacoEconomics2022
Tools for the Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine: A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Valuing Heterogeneity-Informed Decisions.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review of Heterogeneity in Comparative Economic Analysis, with Specific Considerations for the Decentralized US Setting and Patient-Centered Care.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Review
- Using Genomic Heterogeneity to Inform Therapeutic Decisions for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Application of the Value of Heterogeneity Framework.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePrecision medicine highlights the importance of exploring heterogeneity in the effectiveness and costs of interventions. Our objective was to identify and compare frameworks for valuing heterogeneity-informed decisions, and consider their strengths and weaknesses for application to precision medicine.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify papers that proposed an analytical framework to place a value, in terms of costs and health benefits, on using heterogeneity to inform treatment selection. The search included English-language papers indexed in MEDLINE, Embase or EconLit, and a manual review of references and citations. We compared the frameworks qualitatively considering: the purpose and setting of the analysis; the types of precision medicine interventions where the framework could be applied; and the framework's ability to address the methodological challenges of evaluating precision medicine.
resultsFour analytical frameworks were identified: value of stratification, value of heterogeneity, expected value of individualised care and loss with respect to efficient diffusion. Each framework is suited to slightly different settings and research questions. All focus on maximising net benefit, and quantify the opportunity cost of ignoring heterogeneity by comparing individualised or stratified decisions to a means-based population-wide decision. Where the frameworks differ is in their approaches to uncertainty, and in the additional metrics they consider.
conclusionsIdentifying and utilising heterogeneity is at the core of precision medicine, and the ability to quantify the value of heterogeneity-informed decisions is critical. Using an analytical framework to value heterogeneity will help provide evidence to inform investment in precision medicine interventions, appropriately capturing the value of targeted health interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35895254What 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.