IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i7p857-866.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Lucy Abel

    (Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK)

  • Bethany Shinkins

    (NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Leeds, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
    Test Evaluation Group, Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

  • Alison Smith

    (NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Leeds, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
    Test Evaluation Group, Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

  • Andrew J. Sutton

    (NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Leeds, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
    Test Evaluation Group, Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

  • Gurdeep S. Sagoo

    (NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Leeds, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
    Test Evaluation Group, Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

  • Ijeoma Uchegbu

    (NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative London, Imperial College London, London, UK)

  • A. Joy Allen

    (NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Newcastle, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)

  • Sara Graziadio

    (NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Newcastle, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
    Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)

  • Eoin Moloney

    (Health Economics Group, Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)

  • Yaling Yang

    (Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK)

  • Peter Hall

    (NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Leeds, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
    Test Evaluation Group, Academic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
    Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, University of Edinburgh, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucy Abel & Bethany Shinkins & Alison Smith & Andrew J. Sutton & Gurdeep S. Sagoo & Ijeoma Uchegbu & A. Joy Allen & Sara Graziadio & Eoin Moloney & Yaling Yang & Peter Hall, 2019. "Early Economic Evaluation of Diagnostic Technologies: Experiences of the NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operatives," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 857-866, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:7:p:857-866
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19866415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19866415
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19866415?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. Joanna Coast & Richard Smith & Anne‐Marie Karcher & Paula Wilton & Michael Millar, 2002. "Superbugs II: how should economic evaluation be conducted for interventions which aim to contain antimicrobial resistance?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(7), pages 637-647, October.
    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. Alison Bray & Emmanouela Kampouraki & Amanda Winter & Aaron Jesuthasan & Ben Messer & Sara Graziadio, 2020. "High Variability in Sepsis Guidelines in UK: Why Does It Matter?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-18, March.

    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. Barlow, Euan & Morton, Alec & Megiddo, Itamar & Colson, Abigail, 2022. "Optimal subscription models to pay for antibiotics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    2. David H. Howard, 2004. "Resistance‐induced antibiotic substitution," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(6), pages 585-595, June.
    3. Yoel Lubell & Thomas Althaus & Stuart D Blacksell & Daniel H Paris & Mayfong Mayxay & Wirichada Pan-Ngum & Lisa J White & Nicholas P J Day & Paul N Newton, 2016. "Modelling the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Biomarker Tests as Compared with Pathogen-Specific Diagnostics in the Management of Undifferentiated Fever in Remote Tropical Settings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Xuemei Zhen & Cecilia Stålsby Lundborg & Xueshan Sun & Xiaoqian Hu & Hengjin Dong, 2020. "Clinical and Economic Impact of Third-Generation Cephalosporin-Resistant Infection or Colonization Caused by Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae : A Multicenter Study in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-12, December.

    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:39:y:2019:i:7:p:857-866. 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.