Given the rapid development of genetic tests, an assessment of their benefits, risks, and limitations is crucial for public health practice. We performed a systematic review aimed at identifying and comparing the existing evaluation frameworks for genetic tests. We searched PUBMED, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Google, and gray literature sources for any documents describing such frameworks. We identified 29 evaluation frameworks published between 2000 and 2017, mostly based on the ACCE Framework (n = 13 models), or on the HTA process (n = 6), or both (n = 2). Others refer to the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria (n = 3) or to a mixture of different criteria (n = 5). Due to the widespread use of the ACCE Framework, the most frequently used evaluation criteria are analytic and clinical validity, clinical utility and ethical, legal and social implications. Less attention is given to the context of implementation. An economic dimension is always considered, but not in great detail. Consideration of delivery models, organizational aspects, and consumer viewpoint is often lacking. A deeper analysis of such context-related evaluation dimensions may strengthen a comprehensive evaluation of genetic tests and support the decision-making process.

How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature / Pitini, Erica; de Vito, Corrado; Marzuillo, Carolina; D’Andrea, Elvira; Rosso, Annalisa; Federici, Antonio; Di Maria, Emilio; Villari, Paolo. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS. - ISSN 1018-4813. - ELETTRONICO. - (2018), pp. 1-11. [10.1038/s41431-018-0095-5]

How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature

Pitini, Erica
;
de Vito, Corrado;Marzuillo, Carolina;D’Andrea, Elvira;Rosso, Annalisa;Federici, Antonio;Villari, Paolo
2018

Abstract

Given the rapid development of genetic tests, an assessment of their benefits, risks, and limitations is crucial for public health practice. We performed a systematic review aimed at identifying and comparing the existing evaluation frameworks for genetic tests. We searched PUBMED, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Google, and gray literature sources for any documents describing such frameworks. We identified 29 evaluation frameworks published between 2000 and 2017, mostly based on the ACCE Framework (n = 13 models), or on the HTA process (n = 6), or both (n = 2). Others refer to the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria (n = 3) or to a mixture of different criteria (n = 5). Due to the widespread use of the ACCE Framework, the most frequently used evaluation criteria are analytic and clinical validity, clinical utility and ethical, legal and social implications. Less attention is given to the context of implementation. An economic dimension is always considered, but not in great detail. Consideration of delivery models, organizational aspects, and consumer viewpoint is often lacking. A deeper analysis of such context-related evaluation dimensions may strengthen a comprehensive evaluation of genetic tests and support the decision-making process.
2018
genetics; genetics (clinical); genetic screening
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01g Articolo di rassegna (Review)
How is genetic testing evaluated? A systematic review of the literature / Pitini, Erica; de Vito, Corrado; Marzuillo, Carolina; D’Andrea, Elvira; Rosso, Annalisa; Federici, Antonio; Di Maria, Emilio; Villari, Paolo. - In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS. - ISSN 1018-4813. - ELETTRONICO. - (2018), pp. 1-11. [10.1038/s41431-018-0095-5]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Pitini_genetic-testing_2018.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 687.88 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
687.88 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1099017
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 29
  • Scopus 51
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 45
social impact