ReviewHealth economics review2026
Micro-costing of genetic and genomic testing in oncology: a systematic review of laboratory resources and costs.
Review in Health economics review, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThis review aimed to synthesise evidence from micro-costing studies of laboratory-based genetic and genomic testing in oncology by identifying the resource components, critically examining measurement and valuation methods, determining key cost drivers, and assessing the overall quality and transparency of existing published studies to inform more comparable cost estimation practices.
methodsFour large electronic databases, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched and restricted to articles published from 2005 to October 2024. The extracted data from the included studies were synthesized and presented in tables covering study characteristics, direct costs (including resource identification, measurement, and valuation), and cost parameters. Cost estimates were adjusted and converted to 2024 US dollar values. The results were narratively synthesized due to the inapplicability of meta-analysis. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the use of a modified version of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) Checklist.
resultsThis review synthesized data from nine eligible studies. All the included studies were from high-income countries. Results demonstrated inconsistent reporting of both the direct and indirect costs. There was also a significant variation in how the researchers identified, measured and valued the costs of labour, equipment, and supplies. The cost of cancer genetic and genomic testing ranged from $76.91 to $11,431.66, with whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) being the most expensive options.
conclusionsAlthough most studies scored highly on the modified CHEC checklist, it is important to improve in standardization for the future quality of micro-costing research. Specifically, developing uniform terminology, clear guidelines for laboratory workflows, and frameworks for identifying, measuring, and valuing cost components is critical. The establishment of a standardized micro-costing guideline or framework is essential to address these issues. The availability of accurate and high-quality cost data would enable policymakers to make informed decisions regarding the establishment, implementation, and expansion of genetic and genomic testing services across various healthcare settings and countries.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024586802.
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.