Clinical utility and cost‐effectiveness analysis of chromosome testing concomitant with chromosomal microarray of patients with constitutional disorders in a U.S. academic medical center

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng Su ◽  
Stephanie Page ◽  
Mary Haag ◽  
Karen Swisshelm ◽  
Deborrah Hennerich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Academic Medical

scholarly journals Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Neumann ◽  
Jordan E. Anderson ◽  
Ari D. Panzer ◽  
Elle F. Pope ◽  
Brittany N. D'Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
English Language ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Global Cost ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
The Cost

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting “under-studied” conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and “over-studied” conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of chromosomal microarray as a primary test for prenatal diagnosis in Hong Kong

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Ching Yan Chung ◽  
Kelvin Yuen Kwong Chan ◽  
Pui Wah Hui ◽  
Patrick Kwok Cheung Au ◽  
Wai Keung Tam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Prenatal Diagnosis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Chromosomal Microarray ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Primary Test

A Bibliometric Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in the Economic and Medical Literature: 1976-2006

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Greenberg ◽  
Allison B. Rosen ◽  
Oren Wacht ◽  
Jennifer Palmer ◽  
Peter J. Neumann
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Journal Title ◽  
Research Groups ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Prolific Authors

Background. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) presenting a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ratio is frequently used to determine ‘‘value for money’’ in health care. Despite the proliferation of CEA research, there has been no detailed study focusing on the bibliometric properties of this literature. Objectives. To describe and analyze trends in publications and coauthorship in the CEA literature from 1976 to 2006 and to identify the most prolific authors and research groups conducting CEAs. Methods. The authors used the Tufts Medical Center Registry of original CEAs published through 2006 (www.cearegistry.org). For each article, they recorded the year of publication, the journal title, and the number of contributing authors and their names. Authors were assigned credit based on their weighted contribution to the study (1 credit point for the first and last authors, ½ point for the second author, and 1=n credit points for all other authors, where n reflects the number of coauthors). Results. Approximately 1400 CEAs presenting a cost/QALY ratio were published in 420 journals through 2006. The mean number of contributing authors was 4.7 ± 2.4. Medical journals were characterized by a higher number of coauthors, as compared with the economic and health policy journals: 4.8 ± 2.4 v. 4.2 ± 2.0, P < 0.001. The lowest average number of coauthors was in Medical Decision Making (3.6) and the highest in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (8.2). The most prolific authors were affiliated with Harvard and Tufts Universities and their affiliated hospitals. The authors identified 4 major research groups that contributed substantially to the field of cost-effectiveness analysis but did not find any substantial academic relationships across these groups. Conclusions. The CEA literature continues to proliferate. Coauthorship trends appear to follow the rapid increase in the mean number of authors found in other publication types.

329: Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Establishing a Protocol for Utilization of CroFab™ at an Academic Medical Center

2010 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. S107
Author(s):  
K.A. Weant ◽  
R.C. Bowers ◽  
J.L. Reed ◽  
C.A. Braun ◽  
D.M. Dodd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document