IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v38y2018i7p778-788.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward Alignment in the Reporting of Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests and Biomarkers: The AGREEDT Checklist

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle M.A. Kip

    (Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands)

  • Maarten J. IJzerman

    (Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands)

  • Martin Henriksson

    (Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden)

  • Tracy Merlin

    (Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia)

  • Milton C. Weinstein

    (Department of Health Policy and Management Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA)

  • Charles E. Phelps

    (Departments of Economics, Political Science, and Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY)

  • Ron Kusters

    (Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
    Laboratory for Clinical Chemistry and Haematology, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, Den Bosch, the Netherlands)

  • Hendrik Koffijberg

    (Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands)

Abstract

Objectives. General frameworks for conducting and reporting health economic evaluations are available but not specific enough to cover the intricacies of the evaluation of diagnostic tests and biomarkers. Such evaluations are typically complex and model-based because tests primarily affect health outcomes indirectly and real-world data on health outcomes are often lacking. Moreover, not all aspects relevant to the evaluation of a diagnostic test may be known and explicitly considered for inclusion in the evaluation, leading to a loss of transparency and replicability. To address this challenge, this study aims to develop a comprehensive reporting checklist. Methods. This study consisted of 3 main steps: 1) the development of an initial checklist based on a scoping review, 2) review and critical appraisal of the initial checklist by 4 independent experts, and 3) development of a final checklist. Each item from the checklist is illustrated using an example from previous research. Results. The scoping review followed by critical review by the 4 experts resulted in a checklist containing 44 items, which ideally should be considered for inclusion in a model-based health economic evaluation. The extent to which these items were included or discussed in the studies identified in the scoping review varied substantially, with 14 items not being mentioned in ≥47 (75%) of the included studies. Conclusions. The reporting checklist developed in this study may contribute to improved transparency and completeness of model-based health economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and biomarkers. Use of this checklist is therefore encouraged to enhance the interpretation, comparability, and—indirectly—the validity of the results of such evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle M.A. Kip & Maarten J. IJzerman & Martin Henriksson & Tracy Merlin & Milton C. Weinstein & Charles E. Phelps & Ron Kusters & Hendrik Koffijberg, 2018. "Toward Alignment in the Reporting of Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests and Biomarkers: The AGREEDT Checklist," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 778-788, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:7:p:778-788
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18797590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18797590
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X18797590?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    3. Patrick M. M. Bossuyt & Kirsten McCaffery, 2009. "Additional Patient Outcomes and Pathways in Evaluations of Testing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(5), pages 30-38, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deon Lingervelder & Hendrik Koffijberg & Ron Kusters & Maarten J. IJzerman, 2021. "Health Economic Evidence of Point-of-Care Testing: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 157-173, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    2. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Manal H. El-Hamamsy & Gihan H. Elsisi & Randa Eldessouki & Mohamed M. Elmazar & Ahmed S. Taha & Basma F. Awad & Hossam Elmansy, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of the Combined Use of Warfarin and Low-dose Aspirin Versus Warfarin Alone in Mechanical Valve Prostheses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 431-440, August.
    4. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    5. Blythe Adamson & Dobromir Dimitrov & Beth Devine & Ruanne Barnabas, 2017. "The Potential Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Vaccines: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-12, March.
    6. Simone A. Huygens & Isaac Corro Ramos & Carlijn V. C. Bouten & Jolanda Kluin & Shih Ting Chiu & Gary L. Grunkemeier & Johanna J. M. Takkenberg & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken, 2020. "Early cost-utility analysis of tissue-engineered heart valves compared to bioprostheses in the aortic position in elderly patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 557-572, June.
    7. Pepijn Vemer & Maureen Rutten-van Mölken, 2013. "The Road Not Taken: Transferability Issues in Multinational Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(10), pages 863-876, October.
    8. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Elena Conde-Montero & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Bayesian Regression Model for a Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Punch Grafting Versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, May.
    9. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & F Dámaso Fernández-Ginés & Manuel Cortiñas-Sáenz & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of domiciliary topical sevoflurane for painful leg ulcers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-18, September.
    10. Gerardus Frederix & Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Erik Dasbach & Robyn Ward, 2015. "Development and Use of Disease-Specific (Reference) Models for Economic Evaluations of Health Technologies: An Overview of Key Issues and Potential Solutions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(8), pages 777-781, August.
    11. Sarah J Iribarren & Kenrick Cato & Louise Falzon & Patricia W Stone, 2017. "What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, February.
    12. Candio, Paolo & Meads, David & Hill, Andrew J. & Bojke, Laura, 2020. "Modelling the impact of physical activity on public health: A review and critique," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1155-1164.
    13. Inigo Bermejo & Paul Tappenden & Ji-Hee Youn, 2017. "Replicating Health Economic Models: Firm Foundations or a House of Cards?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(11), pages 1113-1121, November.
    14. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    15. Laura Burgers & William Redekop & Johan Severens, 2014. "Challenges in Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Various Interventions for Cardiovascular Disease," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(7), pages 627-637, July.
    16. Paul Tappenden & James Chilcott, 2014. "Avoiding and Identifying Errors and Other Threats to the Credibility of Health Economic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 967-979, October.
    17. Maximilian Hatz & Reiner Leidl & Nichola Yates & Björn Stollenwerk, 2014. "A Systematic Review of the Quality of Economic Models Comparing Thrombosis Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 377-393, April.
    18. Magnus Zingmark & Ingeborg Nilsson & Fredrik Norström & Klas Göran Sahlén & Lars Lindholm, 2017. "Cost effectiveness of an intervention focused on reducing bathing disability," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 233-241, September.
    19. Steffen Flessa & Dominik Dietz & Elisabete Weiderpass, 2016. "Health policy support under extreme uncertainty: the case of cervical cancer in Cambodia," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(3), pages 183-218, November.
    20. Ben Kearns & Roberta Ara & Allan Wailoo & Andrea Manca & Monica Alava & Keith Abrams & Mike Campbell, 2013. "Good Practice Guidelines for the use of Statistical Regression Models in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(8), pages 643-652, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:7:p:778-788. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.