ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2025
Should Scotland provide genome-wide sequencing for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders? A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study aims to evaluate the cost effectiveness of genetic and genomic testing strategies for the diagnosis of rare developmental disorders in NHS Scotland.
methodsSix genetic and genomic testing strategies were evaluated using a decision tree model. First-line, second-line and last-resort trio genome sequencing (GS), and second-line and last-resort trio exome sequencing (ES) were compared with standard genetic testing. The cost effectiveness of each strategy was expressed in terms of incremental cost per additional diagnosis. The impact of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness results was explored using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.
results2nd-line ES was a cost-saving option, increasing diagnostic yield by 13.9% and decreasing cost by £1027 per trio compared to standard genetic testing. Compared to ES, strategies involving GS increased costs significantly, with only a moderate or zero improvement in diagnostic yield. Sensitivity analysis indicated that significant reductions in cost or improvements in diagnostic yield are required before 1st-line GS becomes cost effective.
conclusion2nd-line ES (after chromosomal microarray; replacing gene panel testing) for the diagnosis of developmental disorders is a cost-saving option for the Scottish NHS. Ongoing economic evaluation is required to monitor the evolving cost and diagnostic yield of GS and ES over time.
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.