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

Michelle M.A. Kip, Maarten J. IJzerman, Martin Henriksson, Tracy Merlin, Milton C. Weinstein, Charles E. Phelps, Ron Kusters, Hendrik Koffijberg* (Corresponding Author)

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

34 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)778-788
Number of pages11
JournalMedical decision making
Volume38
Issue number7
Early online date24 Sep 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2018

Fingerprint

Checklist
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Biomarkers
Health
Reproducibility of Results
Research

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D
  • Biomarkers
  • Checklist
  • Diagnostic test
  • Health economic evaluation
  • Reporting
  • Approval

Cite this

@article{e663625e96db40deb4fc3abb744fa77f,
title = "Toward Alignment in the Reporting of Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests and Biomarkers: The AGREEDT Checklist",
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.",
keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D, Biomarkers, Checklist, Diagnostic test, Health economic evaluation, Reporting, Approval",
author = "Kip, {Michelle M.A.} and IJzerman, {Maarten J.} and Martin Henriksson and Tracy Merlin and Weinstein, {Milton C.} and Phelps, {Charles E.} and Ron Kusters and Hendrik Koffijberg",
note = "Sage deal",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0272989X18797590",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "778--788",
journal = "Medical decision making",
issn = "0272-989X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "7",

}

Toward Alignment in the Reporting of Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests and Biomarkers : The AGREEDT Checklist. / Kip, Michelle M.A.; IJzerman, Maarten J.; Henriksson, Martin; Merlin, Tracy; Weinstein, Milton C.; Phelps, Charles E.; Kusters, Ron; Koffijberg, Hendrik (Corresponding Author).

In: Medical decision making, Vol. 38, No. 7, 01.10.2018, p. 778-788.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Toward Alignment in the Reporting of Economic Evaluations of Diagnostic Tests and Biomarkers

T2 - The AGREEDT Checklist

AU - Kip, Michelle M.A.

AU - IJzerman, Maarten J.

AU - Henriksson, Martin

AU - Merlin, Tracy

AU - Weinstein, Milton C.

AU - Phelps, Charles E.

AU - Kusters, Ron

AU - Koffijberg, Hendrik

N1 - Sage deal

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

KW - Biomarkers

KW - Checklist

KW - Diagnostic test

KW - Health economic evaluation

KW - Reporting

KW - Approval

U2 - 10.1177/0272989X18797590

DO - 10.1177/0272989X18797590

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85053900114

VL - 38

SP - 778

EP - 788

JO - Medical decision making

JF - Medical decision making

SN - 0272-989X

IS - 7

ER -