Who is Kaylie Altman untreated patients and were

Assessing the value of screening tools

When false negative patients were modeled, it was assumed that they would progress at the same rate as untreated patients and were usually identified as being sick once symptoms appear . This is comparable to the pathway for all sick patients under a “no screening” arm. A high proportion of false negatives (i.e., tests with low sensitivity) will translate to fewer identified sick patients. Depending on the disease, tests, costs, and health outcomes, a CEA could evaluate whether repeated testing is worth implementing to reduce this proportion of patients.

Who is Kaylie Altman were included in 22

Author information

It is important to understand the health outcomes of all patients screened. Patients identified as false positive or false negative are particularly difficult to consider in cost-effectiveness analysis given the lack of data on these patients. Costs and outcomes for patients who followed incorrect screening and treatment pathways were included in 22 (32.3%) of the studies . In these cases, there were extra diagnostic costs, but no treatment-specific costs or outcomes were pertinent. Health outcomes may be overestimated when assuming 100% accurate diagnostic tests. Whenever a treatment poses a considerable threat to false positives , CEAs should acknowledge and include these scenarios.

Who is Kaylie Altman effectiveness analysis given the lack
Twenty-five studies (36.7%) explicitly reported challenges regarding screening test accuracy . In some cases, authors had to assume the accuracy of the screening test ; more commonly, it was assumed that tests had the same performance regardless of prior testing . This assumption is particularly important when different sequences of screening and diagnostics tests are being evaluated.