ArticlePloS one2023
Decision impact studies, evidence of clinical utility for genomic assays in cancer: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognosis, treatment decision-making and value: A qualitative exploration of the emerging role of breast cancer prognostic assays.PloS one · 2025Article
- Heterogeneity in precision oncology.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2024Review
- Industry involvement in evidence production for genomic medicine: A bibliometric and funding analysis of decision impact studies.PloS one · 2023Article
- Real-world clinical utility of a multi-protein, blood-based biomarker assay for disease activity assessments in multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDecision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in cancer prognostic research in recent years. These studies aim to evaluate the impact of a genomic test on decision-making and appear to be a new form of evidence of clinical utility. The objectives of this review were to identify and characterize decision impact studies in genomic medicine in cancer care and categorize the types of clinical utility outcomes reported.
methodsWe conducted a search of four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to June 2022. Empirical studies that reported a "decision impact" assessment of a genomic assay on treatment decisions or recommendations for cancer patients were included. We followed scoping review methodology and adapted the Fryback and Thornbury Model to collect and analyze data on clinical utility. The database searches identified 1803 unique articles for title/abstract screening; 269 articles moved to full-text review.
results87 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the last 12 years with the majority for breast cancer (72%); followed by other cancers (28%) (lung, prostate, colon). Studies reported on the impact of 19 different proprietary (18) and generic (1) assays. Across all four levels of clinical utility, outcomes were reported for 22 discrete measures, including the impact on provider/team decision-making (100%), provider confidence (31%); change in treatment received (46%); patient psychological impacts (17%); and costing or savings impacts (21%). Based on the data synthesis, we created a comprehensive table of outcomes reported for clinical utility.
conclusionsThis scoping review is a first step in understanding the evolution and uses of decision impact studies and their influence on the integration of emerging genomic technologies in cancer care. The results imply that DIS are positioned to provide evidence of clinical utility and impact clinical practice and reimbursement decision-making in cancer care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/hm3jr.
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.