Economic Evaluations of Pathology Tests, 2010-2015: A Scoping Review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Concerns about pathology testing such as the value provided by new tests and the potential for inappropriate utilization have led to a greater need to assess costs and benefits. Economic evaluations are a formal method of analyzing costs and benefits, yet for pathology tests, questions remain about the scope and quality of the economic evidence. Objective To describe the extent and quality of published evidence provided by economic evaluations of pathology tests from 2010 to 2015. Methods Economic evaluations relating to pathology tests from 2010 to 2015 were reviewed. Eight databases were searched for published studies, and details recorded for the country, clinical focus, type of testing, and consideration of sensitivity, specificity, and false test results. The reporting quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and cost-effectiveness ratios were analyzed for publication bias. Results We found 356 economic evaluations of pathology tests, most of which regarded developed countries. The most common economic evaluations were cost-utility analyses and the most common clinical focus was infectious diseases. More than half of the studies considered sensitivity and specificity, but few studies considered the impact of false test results. The average Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist score was 17 out of 24. Cost-utility ratios were commonly less than $10,000/quality-adjusted life-year or more than $200,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions The number of economic evaluations of pathology tests has increased in recent years, but the rate of increase has plateaued. Furthermore, the quality of studies in the past 5 years was highly variable, and there is some question of publication bias in reporting cost-effectiveness ratios.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1210-1215
Number of pages6
JournalValue in Health
Volume20
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2017

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Pathology
Publication Bias
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Checklist
Sensitivity and Specificity
Health
Developed Countries
Communicable Diseases
Economics
Databases
Costs and Cost Analysis

Cite this

@article{184cbcf36a654876a24a493a48ceb202,
title = "Economic Evaluations of Pathology Tests, 2010-2015: A Scoping Review",
abstract = "Background Concerns about pathology testing such as the value provided by new tests and the potential for inappropriate utilization have led to a greater need to assess costs and benefits. Economic evaluations are a formal method of analyzing costs and benefits, yet for pathology tests, questions remain about the scope and quality of the economic evidence. Objective To describe the extent and quality of published evidence provided by economic evaluations of pathology tests from 2010 to 2015. Methods Economic evaluations relating to pathology tests from 2010 to 2015 were reviewed. Eight databases were searched for published studies, and details recorded for the country, clinical focus, type of testing, and consideration of sensitivity, specificity, and false test results. The reporting quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and cost-effectiveness ratios were analyzed for publication bias. Results We found 356 economic evaluations of pathology tests, most of which regarded developed countries. The most common economic evaluations were cost-utility analyses and the most common clinical focus was infectious diseases. More than half of the studies considered sensitivity and specificity, but few studies considered the impact of false test results. The average Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist score was 17 out of 24. Cost-utility ratios were commonly less than $10,000/quality-adjusted life-year or more than $200,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions The number of economic evaluations of pathology tests has increased in recent years, but the rate of increase has plateaued. Furthermore, the quality of studies in the past 5 years was highly variable, and there is some question of publication bias in reporting cost-effectiveness ratios.",
keywords = "cost-effectiveness analysis, economic evaluation, pathology testing, review",
author = "Watts, {Rory D.} and Li, {Ian W.} and Geelhoed, {Elizabeth A.} and Sanfilippo, {Frank M.} and {St. John}, Andrew",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.023",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "1210--1215",
journal = "Value in Health",
issn = "1098-3015",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

Economic Evaluations of Pathology Tests, 2010-2015 : A Scoping Review. / Watts, Rory D.; Li, Ian W.; Geelhoed, Elizabeth A.; Sanfilippo, Frank M.; St. John, Andrew.

In: Value in Health, Vol. 20, No. 8, 01.09.2017, p. 1210-1215.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic Evaluations of Pathology Tests, 2010-2015

T2 - A Scoping Review

AU - Watts, Rory D.

AU - Li, Ian W.

AU - Geelhoed, Elizabeth A.

AU - Sanfilippo, Frank M.

AU - St. John, Andrew

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Background Concerns about pathology testing such as the value provided by new tests and the potential for inappropriate utilization have led to a greater need to assess costs and benefits. Economic evaluations are a formal method of analyzing costs and benefits, yet for pathology tests, questions remain about the scope and quality of the economic evidence. Objective To describe the extent and quality of published evidence provided by economic evaluations of pathology tests from 2010 to 2015. Methods Economic evaluations relating to pathology tests from 2010 to 2015 were reviewed. Eight databases were searched for published studies, and details recorded for the country, clinical focus, type of testing, and consideration of sensitivity, specificity, and false test results. The reporting quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and cost-effectiveness ratios were analyzed for publication bias. Results We found 356 economic evaluations of pathology tests, most of which regarded developed countries. The most common economic evaluations were cost-utility analyses and the most common clinical focus was infectious diseases. More than half of the studies considered sensitivity and specificity, but few studies considered the impact of false test results. The average Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist score was 17 out of 24. Cost-utility ratios were commonly less than $10,000/quality-adjusted life-year or more than $200,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions The number of economic evaluations of pathology tests has increased in recent years, but the rate of increase has plateaued. Furthermore, the quality of studies in the past 5 years was highly variable, and there is some question of publication bias in reporting cost-effectiveness ratios.

AB - Background Concerns about pathology testing such as the value provided by new tests and the potential for inappropriate utilization have led to a greater need to assess costs and benefits. Economic evaluations are a formal method of analyzing costs and benefits, yet for pathology tests, questions remain about the scope and quality of the economic evidence. Objective To describe the extent and quality of published evidence provided by economic evaluations of pathology tests from 2010 to 2015. Methods Economic evaluations relating to pathology tests from 2010 to 2015 were reviewed. Eight databases were searched for published studies, and details recorded for the country, clinical focus, type of testing, and consideration of sensitivity, specificity, and false test results. The reporting quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and cost-effectiveness ratios were analyzed for publication bias. Results We found 356 economic evaluations of pathology tests, most of which regarded developed countries. The most common economic evaluations were cost-utility analyses and the most common clinical focus was infectious diseases. More than half of the studies considered sensitivity and specificity, but few studies considered the impact of false test results. The average Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist score was 17 out of 24. Cost-utility ratios were commonly less than $10,000/quality-adjusted life-year or more than $200,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions The number of economic evaluations of pathology tests has increased in recent years, but the rate of increase has plateaued. Furthermore, the quality of studies in the past 5 years was highly variable, and there is some question of publication bias in reporting cost-effectiveness ratios.

KW - cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - economic evaluation

KW - pathology testing

KW - review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020801314&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.023

DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2017.04.023

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 1210

EP - 1215

JO - Value in Health

JF - Value in Health

SN - 1098-3015

IS - 8

ER -