In this paper, we updated our 2018 systematic review aimed to identify and compare ad hoc designed frameworks for genetic testing evaluation. Overall, we identified 30 frameworks (29 in the first systematic review and one in the update): they were mainly based on the ACCE model, whereas a minority were adjustments of the more traditional Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approach. After discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the retrieved frameworks, this perspective calls for consensus on the assessment of genetic testing. In line with the recent European recommendations that encouraged the generation of comparable evidence across Member States, we believe that the time has come to align all the ideas that have emerged over the last few decades and find a sustainable and sharable tool for the evaluation of genetic and genomic applications. Therefore, we suggest stopping the evaluation of such technologies using ad hoc strategies–affected by validation, implementation, and adoption issues–and we propose to use a general HTA approach, particularly the European reference tool for the assessment of health technologies, the EUnetHTA HTA core model, that is built on solid theoretical and methodological principles and provides a comprehensive assessment of the technologies value.

Time to align. A call for consensus on the assessment of genetic testing / Pitini, E.; Baccolini, V.; Migliara, G.; Isonne, C.; Sindoni, A.; Mazzalai, E.; Turatto, F.; De Vito, C.; Marzuillo, C.; Villari, P.. - In: FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH. - ISSN 2296-2565. - 9:(2021), pp. 1-4. [10.3389/fpubh.2021.807695]

Time to align. A call for consensus on the assessment of genetic testing

Pitini E.;Baccolini V.;Migliara G.;Isonne C.;Sindoni A.;Mazzalai E.;Turatto F.;De Vito C.;Marzuillo C.;Villari P.
2021

Abstract

In this paper, we updated our 2018 systematic review aimed to identify and compare ad hoc designed frameworks for genetic testing evaluation. Overall, we identified 30 frameworks (29 in the first systematic review and one in the update): they were mainly based on the ACCE model, whereas a minority were adjustments of the more traditional Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approach. After discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the retrieved frameworks, this perspective calls for consensus on the assessment of genetic testing. In line with the recent European recommendations that encouraged the generation of comparable evidence across Member States, we believe that the time has come to align all the ideas that have emerged over the last few decades and find a sustainable and sharable tool for the evaluation of genetic and genomic applications. Therefore, we suggest stopping the evaluation of such technologies using ad hoc strategies–affected by validation, implementation, and adoption issues–and we propose to use a general HTA approach, particularly the European reference tool for the assessment of health technologies, the EUnetHTA HTA core model, that is built on solid theoretical and methodological principles and provides a comprehensive assessment of the technologies value.
2021
eunetita; genetic test; genetic testing; genomic test; health technology assessment; public health genomics
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Time to align. A call for consensus on the assessment of genetic testing / Pitini, E.; Baccolini, V.; Migliara, G.; Isonne, C.; Sindoni, A.; Mazzalai, E.; Turatto, F.; De Vito, C.; Marzuillo, C.; Villari, P.. - In: FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH. - ISSN 2296-2565. - 9:(2021), pp. 1-4. [10.3389/fpubh.2021.807695]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Pitini_Time_2021.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 487.51 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
487.51 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/11573/1625169
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact