IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v8y1988i4p279-289.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Focusing Technology Assessment Using Medical Decision Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Charles E. Phelps
  • Alvin I. Mushlin

Abstract

Combining medical decision theory and epidemiologic information, the authors have devel oped a strategy to assess diagnostic technologies. For any patient, patient utilities with new diagnostic information are compared with the preferred fallback action absent that diagnostic information. After determination of whether the expected value of diagnostic information (EVDI) justifies its cost, the method adds across the eligible population to determine whether the global EVDI justifies the technology's deployment, employing a screen (Hurdle 1) that assumes that the diagnostic device has perfect accuracy. This preliminary evaluation relies on published data on treatment efficacy, population probabilities of illness, etc., but not on new clinical trials. If the technology is not sufficiently cost-effective, even with this optimistic assumption, the strategy recommends against its use. Otherwise, the next step is Hurdle II, in which the critical clinical studies, identified by the decision-theory model, are undertaken. These commonly include measuring the actual diagnostic accuracy of a device, with which the cost-effectiveness is recalculated. These studies in general do not require randomized controlled trials. Key words: technology assessment; decision theory; diagnostic information. (Med Decis Making 8:279-289, 1988)

Suggested Citation

  • Charles E. Phelps & Alvin I. Mushlin, 1988. "Focusing Technology Assessment Using Medical Decision Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 8(4), pages 279-289, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:8:y:1988:i:4:p:279-289
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X8800800409
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X8800800409?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Doubilet & Barbara J. McNeil & Milton C. Weinstein, 1985. "The Decision Concerning Coronary Angiography in Patients with Chest Pain," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 5(3), pages 293-309, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Charles F. Manski, 2020. "Towards Reasonable Patient Care Under Uncertainty," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(2), pages 227-245, April.
    2. Charles F. Manski, 2023. "Using Limited Trial Evidence to Credibly Choose Treatment Dosage when Efficacy and Adverse Effects Weakly Increase with Dose," Papers 2305.17206, arXiv.org.
    3. Joanne Lord & George Laking & Alastair Fischer, 2006. "Non‐linearity in the cost‐effectiveness frontier," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 565-577, June.
    4. Hui Zhang & Christian Wernz & Danny R. Hughes, 2018. "Modeling and designing health care payment innovations for medical imaging," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 37-51, March.
    5. K. Drakopoulos & R. S. Randhawa, 2021. "Why Perfect Tests May Not Be Worth Waiting For: Information as a Commodity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6678-6693, November.
    6. Meltzer, David, 2001. "Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: Implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis to s," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 109-129, January.
    7. Marjolein A. M. Mulders & Monique M. J. Walenkamp & Nico L. Sosef & Frank Ouwehand & Romuald van Velde & J. Carel Goslings & Niels W. L. Schep, 2020. "The Amsterdam Wrist Rules: how much money can they save?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(5), pages 745-750, July.
    8. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    9. George Laking & Joanne Lord & Alastair Fischer, 2006. "The economics of diagnosis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(10), pages 1109-1120, October.
    10. Mark Sculpher & Karl Claxton, 2012. "Real Economics Needs to Reflect Real Decisions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-136, February.
    11. Charles F. Manski, 2016. "Credible Ecological Inference for Personalized Medicine: Formalizing Clinical Judgment," NBER Working Papers 22643, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. De Donder, Philippe & Bardey, David & Zaporozhets, Vera, 2024. "The Health Technology Assessment Approach of the Economic Value of Diagnostic Tests - A Literature Review," TSE Working Papers 24-1508, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    13. Charles F. Manski, 2022. "Patient‐centered appraisal of race‐free clinical risk assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(10), pages 2109-2114, October.
    14. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    15. Katherine Payne, 2009. "Fish and chips all round? Regulation of DNA‐based genetic diagnostics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1233-1236, November.
    16. Charles E. Phelps, 1997. "Good Technologies Gone Bad," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 107-117, February.
    17. Kämpfen, F.; & Gómez-Olivé, X.; & O’Donnell, O.; & Riumallo Herl, C.;, 2023. "Effectiveness of Population-Based Hypertension Screening: A Multidimensional Regression Discontinuity Design," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 23/15, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas H. Lee & Tsuguya Fukui & Milton C. Weinstein & Anna N.A. Tosteson & Lee Goldman, 1988. "Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Strategies for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Stable Angina," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 8(4), pages 268-278, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:8:y:1988:i:4:p:279-289. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.