SynthesisFrontiers in public health2023
Mapping the value for money of precision medicine: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Landscape Analysis of Literature Using Quantitative Approaches to Synthesize Economic Evaluation Studies: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Introduction of early health technology assessment for innovators, clinicians, and funders.npj health systems · 2026Review
- Synthetic Data Generation and Nonparametric Techniques for Assessing Multivariate Similarity to Address Small-Sample Size Challenges.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Review
- Harnessing health economic evaluation for policy and practice.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- The Role of Pharmacies in Providing Point-of-Care Services in the Era of Digital Health and Artificial Intelligence: An Updated Review of Technologies, Regulation and Socioeconomic Considerations.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The value for money of artificial intelligence-empowered precision medicine: a systematic review and regression analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine in oncology setting in China: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Are Hospital Pharmacists Ready for Precision Medicine in Nigerian Healthcare? Insights From a Multi-Center Study.Health care science · 2025Article
- Development of the PICCOTEAM Reference Case for Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Advanced Molecular Solutions for Cancer Therapy-The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the Biomarker Paradigm.Current issues in molecular biology · 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
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to quantify heterogeneity in the value for money of precision medicine (PM) by application types across contexts and conditions and to quantify sources of heterogeneity to areas of particular promises or concerns as the field of PM moves forward. Methods: A systemic search was performed in Embase, Medline, EconLit, and CRD databases for studies published between 2011 and 2021 on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of PM interventions. Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time GDP Results: Among the 275 unique CEAs of PM, publicly sponsored studies found neither genetic testing nor gene therapy cost-effective in general, which was contradictory to studies funded by commercial entities and early stage evaluations. Evidence of PM being cost-effective was concentrated in a genetic test for screening, diagnosis, or as companion diagnostics (pooled NMBs, $48,152, $8,869, $5,693, Conclusion: Precision medicine's value for money across application types and contexts was difficult to conclude from published studies, which might be subject to systematic bias. The conducting and reporting of CEA of PM should be locally based and standardized for meaningful comparisons.
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.