ArticleBMJ open2023
Development of a microcosting protocol to determine the economic cost of diagnostic genomic testing for rare diseases in Australia.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The cost of genetic diagnosis of suspected hereditary pediatric cataracts with whole-exome sequencing from a middle-income country perspective: a mixed costing analysis.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGenomic testing is a relatively new, disruptive and complex health technology with multiple clinical applications in rare diseases, cancer and infection control. Genomic testing is increasingly being implemented into clinical practice, following regulatory approval, funding and adoption in models of care, particularly in the area of rare disease diagnosis. A significant barrier to the adoption and implementation of genomic testing is funding. What remains unclear is what the cost of genomic testing is, what the underlying drivers of cost are and whether policy differences contribute to cost variance in different jurisdictions, such as the requirement to have staff with a medical license involved in testing. This costing study will be useful in future economic evaluations and health technology assessments to inform optimal levels of reimbursement and to support comprehensive and comparable assessment of healthcare resource utilisation in the delivery of genomic testing globally.
methodsA framework is presented that focuses on uncovering the process of genomic testing for any given laboratory, evaluating its utilisation and unit costs, and modelling the cost drivers and overall expenses associated with delivering genomic testing. The goal is to aid in refining and implementing policies regarding both the regulation and funding of genomic testing. A process-focused (activity-based) methodology is outlined, which encompasses resources, assesses individual cost components through a combination of bottom-up and top-down microcosting techniques and allows disaggregation of resource type and process step. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The outputs of the study will be reported at relevant regional genetics and health economics conferences, as well as submitted to a peer-reviewed journal focusing on genomics. Human research ethics committee approval is not required for this microcosting study. This study does not involve research on human subjects, and all data used in the analysis are either publicly available.
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.