Author
Listed:
- Lee F. Schroeder
(Department of Pathology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)
- Paul Rebman
(Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA)
- Parastu Kasaie
(Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA)
- Ernest Kenu
(School of Public Health, University of Ghana, Ghana)
- Jon Zelner
(Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Center for Social Epidemiology and Population Health, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA)
- David W. Dowdy
(Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA)
Abstract
Background Laboratory networks provide services through onsite testing or through specimen transport to higher-tier laboratories. This decision is based on the interplay of testing characteristics, treatment characteristics, and epidemiological characteristics. Objectives Our objective was to develop a generalizable model using the threshold approach to medical decision making to inform test placement decisions. Methods We developed a decision model to compare the incremental utility of onsite versus send-out testing for clinical purposes. We then performed Monte Carlo simulations to identify the settings under which each strategy would be preferred. Tuberculosis was modeled as an exemplar. Results The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. When the sensitivity decrements of onsite testing were minimal, onsite testing tended to be preferred when send-out delays reduced clinical utility by >20%. By contrast, when onsite testing incurred large reductions in sensitivity, onsite testing tended to be preferred when utility lost due to delays was >50%. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were >10% of treatment costs. Conclusions Decision makers can select onsite versus send-out testing in an evidence-based fashion using estimates of the percentage of clinical utility lost due to send-out delays and the relative accuracy of onsite versus send-out testing. This model is designed to be generalizable to a wide variety of use cases. Highlights The design of laboratory networks, including the decision to place diagnostic instruments at the point-of-care or at higher tiers as accessed through specimen transport, can be informed using the threshold approach to medical decision making. The most important determinants of the decision to test onsite versus send-out were the clinical utility lost due to send-out testing delays and the accuracy decrement with onsite testing. The threshold approach to medical decision making can be used to compare point-of-care testing accuracy decrements with the lost utility of treatment due to send-out testing delays. The relative cost of onsite versus send-out testing affected these thresholds, particularly when testing costs were >10% of treatment costs.
Suggested Citation
Lee F. Schroeder & Paul Rebman & Parastu Kasaie & Ernest Kenu & Jon Zelner & David W. Dowdy, 2024.
"A Generalizable Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Onsite versus Send-out Clinical Laboratory Testing,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(3), pages 307-319, April.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:3:p:307-319
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241232666
Download full text from publisher
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:44:y:2024:i:3:p:307-319. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.