Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Eur J Hum Genet. 2018 May;26(5):605-615. doi: 10.1038/s41431-018-0095-5. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
Given the rapid development of genetic tests, an assessment of their benefits, risks, and limitations is crucial for public health practice. We performed a systematic review aimed at identifying and comparing the existing evaluation frameworks for genetic tests. We searched PUBMED, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Google, and gray literature sources for any documents describing such frameworks. We identified 29 evaluation frameworks published between 2000 and 2017, mostly based on the ACCE Framework (n = 13 models), or on the HTA process (n = 6), or both (n = 2). Others refer to the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria (n = 3) or to a mixture of different criteria (n = 5). Due to the widespread use of the ACCE Framework, the most frequently used evaluation criteria are analytic and clinical validity, clinical utility and ethical, legal and social implications. Less attention is given to the context of implementation. An economic dimension is always considered, but not in great detail. Consideration of delivery models, organizational aspects, and consumer viewpoint is often lacking. A deeper analysis of such context-related evaluation dimensions may strengthen a comprehensive evaluation of genetic tests and support the decision-making process.
鉴于基因检测的快速发展,对其益处、风险和局限性进行评估对于公共卫生实践至关重要。我们进行了一项系统评价,旨在确定和比较现有的基因检测评估框架。我们在 PUBMED、SCOPUS、ISI Web of Knowledge、Google Scholar、Google 和灰色文献来源中搜索了任何描述此类框架的文件。我们确定了 29 个在 2000 年至 2017 年间发表的评估框架,其中大多数基于 ACCE 框架(n=13 个模型)或 HTA 流程(n=6),或两者兼而有之(n=2)。其他的则参考了 Wilson 和 Jungner 筛查标准(n=3)或混合使用了不同的标准(n=5)。由于 ACCE 框架的广泛使用,最常使用的评估标准是分析和临床有效性、临床实用性以及伦理、法律和社会影响。对实施背景的关注较少。经济维度总是被考虑,但不是很详细。对这些与背景相关的评估维度进行更深入的分析,可以加强对基因检测的全面评估,并支持决策过程。