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 and Hendrik Koffijberg
Additional contact information
Michelle M.A. Kip: Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
Maarten J. IJzerman: Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
Martin Henriksson: Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
Tracy Merlin: Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Milton C. Weinstein: Department of Health Policy and Management Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Charles E. Phelps: Departments of Economics, Political Science, and Public Health Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Ron Kusters: Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands
Hendrik Koffijberg: Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

Medical Decision Making, 2018, vol. 38, issue 7, 778-788

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: approval; biomarkers; checklist; diagnostic test; health economic evaluation; reporting (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X18797590 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:38:y:2018:i:7:p:778-788

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X18797590

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().