在预测和预测伴随诊断的经济评价的方法学方法:系统范围审查。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tuukka Hakkarainen, Haavisto Ira, Leskelä Riikka-Leena
{"title":"在预测和预测伴随诊断的经济评价的方法学方法:系统范围审查。","authors":"Tuukka Hakkarainen, Haavisto Ira, Leskelä Riikka-Leena","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2519744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic scoping review aimed to identify and analyze current methodological approaches used in model-based economic evaluations (EEs) of prognostic and predictive companion diagnostics (pCDx), highlighting methodological gaps and challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus (January 2009-March 2023). Included studies were model-based EEs, methodological papers, or reviews specifically addressing prognostic or predictive CDx. Data extraction followed the modified CHEERS checklist. Results were synthesized narratively across six methodological domains. No formal risk of bias assessment was done per scoping review conventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-eight studies were included, of which 60 were model-based EEs. Most studies utilized Markov cohort models (37%) or decision tree-Markov hybrids (30%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were the main outcome (88%). Only 15% of studies derived clinical utility from randomized controlled trials, and fewer than half explicitly modeled diagnostic accuracy. Methodological limitations included inconsistent modeling of real-world test-treatment pathways, insufficient consideration of pretest probabilities, diagnostic thresholds, and inadequate uncertainty analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review identified variability and methodological gaps in economic evaluations of pCDx. Standardizing evaluation methods, integrating real-world evidence, and systematically considering the diagnostic accuracy and uncertainty could improve the robustness of pCDx evaluations. Limitations of this study included overrepresentation of breast cancer studies.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>OSF Registries (22 February 2023) DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/GVFMQ.</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1037-1049"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological approaches in the economic evaluation of prognostic and predictive companion diagnostics: a systematic scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Tuukka Hakkarainen, Haavisto Ira, Leskelä Riikka-Leena\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14737167.2025.2519744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic scoping review aimed to identify and analyze current methodological approaches used in model-based economic evaluations (EEs) of prognostic and predictive companion diagnostics (pCDx), highlighting methodological gaps and challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus (January 2009-March 2023). Included studies were model-based EEs, methodological papers, or reviews specifically addressing prognostic or predictive CDx. Data extraction followed the modified CHEERS checklist. Results were synthesized narratively across six methodological domains. No formal risk of bias assessment was done per scoping review conventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-eight studies were included, of which 60 were model-based EEs. Most studies utilized Markov cohort models (37%) or decision tree-Markov hybrids (30%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were the main outcome (88%). Only 15% of studies derived clinical utility from randomized controlled trials, and fewer than half explicitly modeled diagnostic accuracy. Methodological limitations included inconsistent modeling of real-world test-treatment pathways, insufficient consideration of pretest probabilities, diagnostic thresholds, and inadequate uncertainty analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review identified variability and methodological gaps in economic evaluations of pCDx. Standardizing evaluation methods, integrating real-world evidence, and systematically considering the diagnostic accuracy and uncertainty could improve the robustness of pCDx evaluations. Limitations of this study included overrepresentation of breast cancer studies.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>OSF Registries (22 February 2023) DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/GVFMQ.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1037-1049\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2519744\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2519744","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统的范围综述旨在识别和分析当前用于基于模型的预后和预测性伴随诊断(pCDx)经济评估(EEs)的方法学方法,突出方法学上的差距和挑战。方法:系统检索PubMed和Scopus(2009年1月- 2023年3月)。纳入的研究是基于模型的EEs、方法学论文或专门针对预后或预测性CDx的综述。数据提取遵循修改后的CHEERS检查表。结果综合叙述跨越六个方法学领域。没有根据范围审查惯例进行正式的偏倚风险评估。结果:共纳入88项研究,其中60项为基于模型的EEs。大多数研究使用马尔可夫队列模型(37%)或决策树-马尔可夫杂交模型(30%)。质量调整生命年(QALYs)是主要结局(88%)。只有15%的研究从随机对照试验中获得临床效用,不到一半的研究明确地模拟了诊断的准确性。方法学的局限性包括对真实世界测试治疗途径的不一致建模、未充分考虑预测概率、诊断阈值和不确定性分析不充分。结论:本综述确定了pCDx经济评估的可变性和方法学上的差距。标准化评估方法,整合真实证据,系统考虑诊断准确性和不确定性,可以提高pCDx评估的稳健性。本研究的局限性包括乳腺癌研究的过度代表性。注册:OSF注册(2023年2月22日)DOI 10.17605/OSF. io /GVFMQ。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological approaches in the economic evaluation of prognostic and predictive companion diagnostics: a systematic scoping review.

Introduction: This systematic scoping review aimed to identify and analyze current methodological approaches used in model-based economic evaluations (EEs) of prognostic and predictive companion diagnostics (pCDx), highlighting methodological gaps and challenges.

Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus (January 2009-March 2023). Included studies were model-based EEs, methodological papers, or reviews specifically addressing prognostic or predictive CDx. Data extraction followed the modified CHEERS checklist. Results were synthesized narratively across six methodological domains. No formal risk of bias assessment was done per scoping review conventions.

Results: Eighty-eight studies were included, of which 60 were model-based EEs. Most studies utilized Markov cohort models (37%) or decision tree-Markov hybrids (30%). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were the main outcome (88%). Only 15% of studies derived clinical utility from randomized controlled trials, and fewer than half explicitly modeled diagnostic accuracy. Methodological limitations included inconsistent modeling of real-world test-treatment pathways, insufficient consideration of pretest probabilities, diagnostic thresholds, and inadequate uncertainty analyses.

Conclusions: This review identified variability and methodological gaps in economic evaluations of pCDx. Standardizing evaluation methods, integrating real-world evidence, and systematically considering the diagnostic accuracy and uncertainty could improve the robustness of pCDx evaluations. Limitations of this study included overrepresentation of breast cancer studies.

Registration: OSF Registries (22 February 2023) DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/GVFMQ.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信