Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):1010-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.044. Epub 2011 Aug 6.
To review and evaluate the literature of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) regarding diagnostic laboratory testing.
We reviewed all articles related to diagnostic laboratory testing in the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), which contains detailed information on over 2000 published CUAs through 2008. We analyzed the extent to which the studies adhered to recommended practices for conducting and reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. We also recorded whether the studies contained information on diagnostic test accuracy and costs, and whether any account was taken of potential benefits or harms of testing that are unrelated to subsequent treatment, such as the reassurance value of testing.
We identified 141 published CUAs pertaining to diagnostic laboratory testing published through 2008 which contained 433 separate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Prior to 2000, there were only 20 CUAs published, but the number averaged 13.4 annually thereafter. Most studies focused on hematology/oncology (n = 42, 30%) and obstetrics/gynecology (n = 36, 26%) applications. Approximately 63% (n = 89) of studies clearly reported information about the accuracy of the test, but only 10% (n = 14) mentioned test safety or possible risks. A small number (n = 10, 7%) mentioned or considered the potential value or harm of testing unrelated to treatment consequences. Over 55% of the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were either dominant (more quality-adjusted life years for less cost), or below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life years gained (in 2008 US dollars).
The number of CUAs investigating laboratory diagnostic testing has increased substantially with applications to diverse clinical areas. The literature reveals many areas in which testing represents good value for money. The vast majority of studies have not considered preferences for test information unrelated to treatment consequences.
综述并评价有关诊断性实验室检测的成本效用分析(CUA)文献。
我们检索了塔夫茨医疗中心成本效果分析注册中心(www.cearegistry.org)中与诊断性实验室检测相关的所有文章,该数据库包含了截止到 2008 年的 2000 多篇发表的 CUA 详细信息。我们分析了这些研究在实施和报告成本效果分析方面遵守推荐做法的程度。我们还记录了这些研究是否包含诊断性检测准确性和成本信息,以及是否考虑了与后续治疗无关的检测潜在获益或危害,例如检测带来的安心作用。
我们确定了截止到 2008 年发表的 141 篇有关诊断性实验室检测的 CUA,其中包含 433 个单独的增量成本效果比。2000 年之前,仅发表了 20 篇 CUA,但此后每年平均有 13.4 篇。大多数研究集中于血液学/肿瘤学(n = 42,30%)和妇产科(n = 36,26%)的应用。大约 63%(n = 89)的研究明确报告了检测准确性的信息,但仅有 10%(n = 14)提到了检测安全性或可能的风险。少数(n = 10,7%)提到或考虑了与治疗后果无关的检测潜在价值或危害。所报告的增量成本效果比(ICER)中,超过 55%(n = 77)的结果为优势(花费较少的成本获得更多的质量调整生命年)或低于每获得 1 个质量调整生命年 5 万美元(以 2008 年美元计)。
有关实验室诊断检测的 CUA 研究数量大幅增加,应用于多个临床领域。文献揭示了许多具有成本效益的检测领域。绝大多数研究都没有考虑与治疗后果无关的检测信息偏好。