ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023
Advancing hospital-based health technology assessment: evaluating genomic panel contracting strategies for blood tumors through a multimethodology.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe adoption of genomic technologies in the context of hospital-based health technology assessment presents multiple practical and organizational challenges.
objectiveThis study aimed to assist the Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil (IPO Lisboa) decision makers in analyzing which acute myeloid leukemia (AML) genomic panel contracting strategies had the highest value-for-money.
methodsA tailored, three-step approach was developed, which included: mapping clinical pathways of AML patients, building a multicriteria value model using the MACBETH approach to evaluate each genomic testing contracting strategy, and estimating the cost of each strategy through Monte Carlo simulation modeling. The value-for-money of three contracting strategies - "Standard of care (S1)," "FoundationOne Heme test (S2)," and "New diagnostic test infrastructure (S3)" - was then analyzed through strategy landscape and value-for-money graphs.
resultsImplementing a larger gene panel (S2) and investing in a new diagnostic test infrastructure (S3) were shown to generate extra value, but also to entail extra costs in comparison with the standard of care, with the extra value being explained by making available additional genetic information that enables more personalized treatment and patient monitoring (S2 and S3), access to a broader range of clinical trials (S2), and more complete databases to potentiate research (S3).
conclusionThe proposed multimethodology provided IPO Lisboa decision makers with comprehensive and insightful information regarding each strategy's value-for-money, enabling an informed discussion on whether to move from the current Strategy S1 to other competing strategies.
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.