A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.     

Correction to: Influence of oral anticoagulation on success rates and risk of bleeding events after iStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology - The published online version contains mistake as the author's first name and last name have been interchanged as "Hild...     

Collection of Wound Exudate From Human Digit Tip Amputations Does Not Impair Regenerative Healing: A Randomized Trial

The regrowth of amputated digit tips represents a unique regenerative healing in mammals with subcutaneous volume regrowth, restoration of dactylogram, and suppression of scar formation. Although factor analysis in amphibians and even in mice is easy to obtain, safety of harvesting biomaterial from human digit tip amputations for analysis has not yet been described.The aim of this study was to evaluate if recovering wound exudate does hamper clinical outcome or influence microbiologic or inflammation status.A predefined cohort of 18 patients with fresh digit tip amputations was randomly assigned to receive standard therapy (debridement, occlusive dressing) with (n = 9) or without (n = 9) collection of the whole wound exudate in every dressing change. Primary endpoint (lengthening) and secondary endpoints (regeneration of dactylogram, nail bed and bone healing, time to complete wound closure, scar formation, 2-point discrimination, microbiologic analysis, inflammatory factors interleukin (IL)-1α, tumor necrosis factor-α, IL-4, and IL-6) were determined by an independent, blinded observer.Patients’ characteristics showed no significant differences between the groups. All patients completed the study to the end of 3 months follow-up. Exudate collection did not influence primary and secondary endpoints. Furthermore, positive microbiologic findings as well as pus- and necrosis-like appearance neither impaired tissue restoration nor influenced inflammatory factor release.Here, the authors developed an easy and safe protocol for harvesting wound exudate from human digit tip amputations. For the first time, it was shown that harvesting does not impair regenerative healing. Using this method, further studies can be conducted to analyze regeneration associated factors in the human digit tip.DRKS.de Identifier: DRKS00006882 (UTN: U1111-1166-5723).