Early Economic Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies: Experiences of the NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives

Diagnostic tests are expensive and time-consuming to develop. Early economic evaluation using decision modeling can reduce commercial risk by providing early evidence on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health Research Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives (DECs) was established to catalyz...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical decision making 2019-10, Vol.39 (7), p.857-866
Hauptverfasser: Abel, Lucy, Shinkins, Bethany, Smith, Alison, Sutton, Andrew J., Sagoo, Gurdeep S., Uchegbu, Ijeoma, Allen, A. Joy, Graziadio, Sara, Moloney, Eoin, Yang, Yaling, Hall, Peter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 866
container_issue 7
container_start_page 857
container_title Medical decision making
container_volume 39
creator Abel, Lucy
Shinkins, Bethany
Smith, Alison
Sutton, Andrew J.
Sagoo, Gurdeep S.
Uchegbu, Ijeoma
Allen, A. Joy
Graziadio, Sara
Moloney, Eoin
Yang, Yaling
Hall, Peter
description Diagnostic tests are expensive and time-consuming to develop. Early economic evaluation using decision modeling can reduce commercial risk by providing early evidence on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health Research Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives (DECs) was established to catalyze evidence generation for diagnostic tests by collaborating with commercial developers; DEC researchers have consequently made extensive use of early modeling. The aim of this article is to summarize the experiences of the DECs using early modeling for diagnostics. We draw on 8 case studies to illustrate the methods, highlight methodological strengths and weaknesses particular to diagnostics, and provide advice. The case studies covered diagnosis, screening, and treatment stratification. Treatment effectiveness was a crucial determinant of cost-effectiveness in all cases, but robust evidence to inform this parameter was sparse. This risked limiting the usability of the results, although characterization of this uncertainty in turn highlighted the value of further evidence generation. Researchers evaluating early models must be aware of the importance of treatment effect evidence when reviewing the cost-effectiveness of diagnostics. Researchers planning to develop an early model of a test should also 1) consult widely with clinicians to ensure the model reflects real-world patient care; 2) develop comprehensive models that can be updated as the technology develops, rather than taking a “quick and dirty” approach that may risk producing misleading results; and 3) use flexible methods of reviewing evidence and evaluating model results, to fit the needs of multiple decision makers. Decision models can provide vital information for developers at an early stage, although limited evidence mean researchers should proceed with caution.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0272989X19866415
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2298146091</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0272989X19866415</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2298146091</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-40b550d0f9fddf6908ec91b4f09960e1be5ff3693d934310845a31db084cba63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEFLwzAYhoMobk7vnqRHL9WkSdPGm8zqBkNBdtitpOmXLaNrZtMO9-9N2RQRPOWD93lfyIPQNcF3hCTJPY6SSKRiQUTKOSPxCRqSOI5CnpLFKRr2cdjnA3Th3BpjwkTKztGAeoqnmA-RzWRT7YNM2dpujAqynaw62RpbB1YHT0Yua-taH8xBrWpb2aUB9xBkn1toDNQKXM-1Kwhep5P334VsZ8oeCMY2tJ72oztwl-hMy8rB1fEdoflzNh9Pwtnby3T8OAsVTUQbMlzEMS6xFrosNRc4BSVIwTQWgmMgBcRaUy5oKSijBKcslpSUhT9UITkdodvD7LaxHx24Nt8Yp6CqZA22c3nktRHGsSAexQdUNda5BnS-bcxGNvuc4Ly3nP-17Cs3x_Wu2ED5U_jW6oHwADi5hHxtu6b2n_1_8Astq4WB</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2298146091</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Early Economic Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies: Experiences of the NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Abel, Lucy ; Shinkins, Bethany ; Smith, Alison ; Sutton, Andrew J. ; Sagoo, Gurdeep S. ; Uchegbu, Ijeoma ; Allen, A. Joy ; Graziadio, Sara ; Moloney, Eoin ; Yang, Yaling ; Hall, Peter</creator><creatorcontrib>Abel, Lucy ; Shinkins, Bethany ; Smith, Alison ; Sutton, Andrew J. ; Sagoo, Gurdeep S. ; Uchegbu, Ijeoma ; Allen, A. Joy ; Graziadio, Sara ; Moloney, Eoin ; Yang, Yaling ; Hall, Peter</creatorcontrib><description>Diagnostic tests are expensive and time-consuming to develop. Early economic evaluation using decision modeling can reduce commercial risk by providing early evidence on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health Research Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives (DECs) was established to catalyze evidence generation for diagnostic tests by collaborating with commercial developers; DEC researchers have consequently made extensive use of early modeling. The aim of this article is to summarize the experiences of the DECs using early modeling for diagnostics. We draw on 8 case studies to illustrate the methods, highlight methodological strengths and weaknesses particular to diagnostics, and provide advice. The case studies covered diagnosis, screening, and treatment stratification. Treatment effectiveness was a crucial determinant of cost-effectiveness in all cases, but robust evidence to inform this parameter was sparse. This risked limiting the usability of the results, although characterization of this uncertainty in turn highlighted the value of further evidence generation. Researchers evaluating early models must be aware of the importance of treatment effect evidence when reviewing the cost-effectiveness of diagnostics. Researchers planning to develop an early model of a test should also 1) consult widely with clinicians to ensure the model reflects real-world patient care; 2) develop comprehensive models that can be updated as the technology develops, rather than taking a “quick and dirty” approach that may risk producing misleading results; and 3) use flexible methods of reviewing evidence and evaluating model results, to fit the needs of multiple decision makers. Decision models can provide vital information for developers at an early stage, although limited evidence mean researchers should proceed with caution.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-989X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-681X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19866415</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31556806</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Biomedical Technology - economics ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Critical Pathways ; Decision Support Techniques ; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - economics ; Humans ; Models, Economic ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Stakeholder Participation ; Treatment Outcome ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Medical decision making, 2019-10, Vol.39 (7), p.857-866</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-40b550d0f9fddf6908ec91b4f09960e1be5ff3693d934310845a31db084cba63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-40b550d0f9fddf6908ec91b4f09960e1be5ff3693d934310845a31db084cba63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3025-5413 ; 0000-0001-5857-1269</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0272989X19866415$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19866415$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21817,27922,27923,43619,43620</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31556806$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Abel, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shinkins, Bethany</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sagoo, Gurdeep S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uchegbu, Ijeoma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, A. Joy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graziadio, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moloney, Eoin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Yaling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hall, Peter</creatorcontrib><title>Early Economic Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies: Experiences of the NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives</title><title>Medical decision making</title><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><description>Diagnostic tests are expensive and time-consuming to develop. Early economic evaluation using decision modeling can reduce commercial risk by providing early evidence on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health Research Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives (DECs) was established to catalyze evidence generation for diagnostic tests by collaborating with commercial developers; DEC researchers have consequently made extensive use of early modeling. The aim of this article is to summarize the experiences of the DECs using early modeling for diagnostics. We draw on 8 case studies to illustrate the methods, highlight methodological strengths and weaknesses particular to diagnostics, and provide advice. The case studies covered diagnosis, screening, and treatment stratification. Treatment effectiveness was a crucial determinant of cost-effectiveness in all cases, but robust evidence to inform this parameter was sparse. This risked limiting the usability of the results, although characterization of this uncertainty in turn highlighted the value of further evidence generation. Researchers evaluating early models must be aware of the importance of treatment effect evidence when reviewing the cost-effectiveness of diagnostics. Researchers planning to develop an early model of a test should also 1) consult widely with clinicians to ensure the model reflects real-world patient care; 2) develop comprehensive models that can be updated as the technology develops, rather than taking a “quick and dirty” approach that may risk producing misleading results; and 3) use flexible methods of reviewing evidence and evaluating model results, to fit the needs of multiple decision makers. Decision models can provide vital information for developers at an early stage, although limited evidence mean researchers should proceed with caution.</description><subject>Biomedical Technology - economics</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Critical Pathways</subject><subject>Decision Support Techniques</subject><subject>Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - economics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Models, Economic</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Stakeholder Participation</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0272-989X</issn><issn>1552-681X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEFLwzAYhoMobk7vnqRHL9WkSdPGm8zqBkNBdtitpOmXLaNrZtMO9-9N2RQRPOWD93lfyIPQNcF3hCTJPY6SSKRiQUTKOSPxCRqSOI5CnpLFKRr2cdjnA3Th3BpjwkTKztGAeoqnmA-RzWRT7YNM2dpujAqynaw62RpbB1YHT0Yua-taH8xBrWpb2aUB9xBkn1toDNQKXM-1Kwhep5P334VsZ8oeCMY2tJ72oztwl-hMy8rB1fEdoflzNh9Pwtnby3T8OAsVTUQbMlzEMS6xFrosNRc4BSVIwTQWgmMgBcRaUy5oKSijBKcslpSUhT9UITkdodvD7LaxHx24Nt8Yp6CqZA22c3nktRHGsSAexQdUNda5BnS-bcxGNvuc4Ly3nP-17Cs3x_Wu2ED5U_jW6oHwADi5hHxtu6b2n_1_8Astq4WB</recordid><startdate>201910</startdate><enddate>201910</enddate><creator>Abel, Lucy</creator><creator>Shinkins, Bethany</creator><creator>Smith, Alison</creator><creator>Sutton, Andrew J.</creator><creator>Sagoo, Gurdeep S.</creator><creator>Uchegbu, Ijeoma</creator><creator>Allen, A. Joy</creator><creator>Graziadio, Sara</creator><creator>Moloney, Eoin</creator><creator>Yang, Yaling</creator><creator>Hall, Peter</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3025-5413</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5857-1269</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201910</creationdate><title>Early Economic Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies: Experiences of the NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives</title><author>Abel, Lucy ; Shinkins, Bethany ; Smith, Alison ; Sutton, Andrew J. ; Sagoo, Gurdeep S. ; Uchegbu, Ijeoma ; Allen, A. Joy ; Graziadio, Sara ; Moloney, Eoin ; Yang, Yaling ; Hall, Peter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-40b550d0f9fddf6908ec91b4f09960e1be5ff3693d934310845a31db084cba63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Biomedical Technology - economics</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Critical Pathways</topic><topic>Decision Support Techniques</topic><topic>Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - economics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Models, Economic</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Stakeholder Participation</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Abel, Lucy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shinkins, Bethany</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Andrew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sagoo, Gurdeep S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uchegbu, Ijeoma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, A. Joy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graziadio, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moloney, Eoin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Yaling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hall, Peter</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Abel, Lucy</au><au>Shinkins, Bethany</au><au>Smith, Alison</au><au>Sutton, Andrew J.</au><au>Sagoo, Gurdeep S.</au><au>Uchegbu, Ijeoma</au><au>Allen, A. Joy</au><au>Graziadio, Sara</au><au>Moloney, Eoin</au><au>Yang, Yaling</au><au>Hall, Peter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Early Economic Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies: Experiences of the NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives</atitle><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><date>2019-10</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>857</spage><epage>866</epage><pages>857-866</pages><issn>0272-989X</issn><eissn>1552-681X</eissn><abstract>Diagnostic tests are expensive and time-consuming to develop. Early economic evaluation using decision modeling can reduce commercial risk by providing early evidence on cost-effectiveness. The National Institute for Health Research Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives (DECs) was established to catalyze evidence generation for diagnostic tests by collaborating with commercial developers; DEC researchers have consequently made extensive use of early modeling. The aim of this article is to summarize the experiences of the DECs using early modeling for diagnostics. We draw on 8 case studies to illustrate the methods, highlight methodological strengths and weaknesses particular to diagnostics, and provide advice. The case studies covered diagnosis, screening, and treatment stratification. Treatment effectiveness was a crucial determinant of cost-effectiveness in all cases, but robust evidence to inform this parameter was sparse. This risked limiting the usability of the results, although characterization of this uncertainty in turn highlighted the value of further evidence generation. Researchers evaluating early models must be aware of the importance of treatment effect evidence when reviewing the cost-effectiveness of diagnostics. Researchers planning to develop an early model of a test should also 1) consult widely with clinicians to ensure the model reflects real-world patient care; 2) develop comprehensive models that can be updated as the technology develops, rather than taking a “quick and dirty” approach that may risk producing misleading results; and 3) use flexible methods of reviewing evidence and evaluating model results, to fit the needs of multiple decision makers. Decision models can provide vital information for developers at an early stage, although limited evidence mean researchers should proceed with caution.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>31556806</pmid><doi>10.1177/0272989X19866415</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3025-5413</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5857-1269</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0272-989X
ispartof Medical decision making, 2019-10, Vol.39 (7), p.857-866
issn 0272-989X
1552-681X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2298146091
source MEDLINE; SAGE Complete A-Z List
subjects Biomedical Technology - economics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Critical Pathways
Decision Support Techniques
Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - economics
Humans
Models, Economic
Sensitivity and Specificity
Stakeholder Participation
Treatment Outcome
United Kingdom
title Early Economic Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies: Experiences of the NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T13%3A34%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Early%20Economic%20Evaluation%20of%20Diagnostic%20Technologies:%20Experiences%20of%20the%20NIHR%20Diagnostic%20Evidence%20Co-operatives&rft.jtitle=Medical%20decision%20making&rft.au=Abel,%20Lucy&rft.date=2019-10&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=857&rft.epage=866&rft.pages=857-866&rft.issn=0272-989X&rft.eissn=1552-681X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0272989X19866415&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2298146091%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2298146091&rft_id=info:pmid/31556806&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0272989X19866415&rfr_iscdi=true