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.     

Reacreditación o recertificación de los cirujanos generales en España: esa es la cuestión. Resultados de una encuesta nacional

IntroductionThe Law for the Regulation of Health Professions (LOPS) indicates that health professionals will carry out continuous training throughout their professional life, and will regularly prove their professional competence. The objective of the study was to carry out a national survey to find out the opinion of Spanish surgeons and thus be able to prepare a recertification project by the Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC).MethodsCross-sectional observational study carried out in June-July 2020, through a survey sent to the members of the AEC.ResultsThe survey had a total of 1230 visits and an overall completion rate of 784 responses (67.3%). 69.6% were unaware of the LOPS forecasts and 83.4% were unaware of similar initiatives in other specialties and 95.5% agreed to demand adequate information. 71.4% believed it necessary but only 57% believed that it should be mandatory. 82.9% would agree that it should be regulated through an objective and predictable official procedure.ConclusionsThe concept of re-accreditation is not well known in our specialty and in view of the results obtained, adequate and reliable information seems necessary. Therefore, it would be pertinent to propose by the AEC a specific project to assess activities and skills.     

COVID-19 Gender Disparities and Mitigation Recommendations: A Narrative Review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly created widespread impacts on global health and the economy. Data suggest that women are less susceptible to severe illness. However, sex-disaggregated data are incomplete, leaving room for misinterpretation, and focusing only on biologic sex underestimates the gendered impact of the pandemic on women. This narrative review summarizes what is known about gender disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic, domestic, and health burdens along with overlapping vulnerabilities related to the pandemic. In addition, this review outlines recommended strategies that advocacy groups, community leaders, and policymakers should implement to mitigate the widening gender disparities related to COVID-19.