ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2025
Development of the PICCOTEAM Reference Case for Economic Evaluation of Precision Medicine.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Financing and health system capacity for precision medicine in Asia: a six country landscape analysis.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Introduction of early health technology assessment for innovators, clinicians, and funders.npj health systems · 2026Review
- Harnessing health economic evaluation for policy and practice.Communications medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent economic evaluations (EEs) of precision medicine (PM) often adhere to generic reference cases (RCs) which overlook the unique healthcare paradigms of PM. This study aimed to develop an RC to standardize the conduct and reporting of EEs of PM.
methodsA working group comprising 5 core health economists, 22 PM experts, and research staff from Singapore, Thailand, the Netherlands, UK, and Australia who were actively engaged in EE and clinical PM implementation. The RC development comprised four stages: (1) Expert consultation shaping the RC's scope and structure across nine domains: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Cost, Outcome, Time, Equity and ethics, Adaptability, and Modelling (ie, "PICCOTEAM" framework); (2) A comprehensive literature review on current PM EE approaches and challenges; (3) Obtaining expert consensus and drafting recommendations; (4) A workshop for RC refinement based on stakeholder feedback on relevance and feasibility. Following an experts' workshop, consensus was reached to tailor PM recommendations for screening, diagnosis, and pharmacogenomics, market-access, and early EEs.
resultsThe PICCOTEAM RC offers 46 recommendations for conventional EEs to guide PM reimbursement, emphasizing expert engagement, iterative study processes, disease-specific outcomes, decision uncertainty analyses, and equity considerations. Additionally, 30 recommendations are provided for early-stage evaluation to enhance PM's positioning and value proposition, mitigating uncertainty, equity, and ethical issues.
conclusionThe PICCOTEAM RC offers a standardized process to conduct and report diverse PM EEs. This will serve as guidance for health departments, researchers, clinicians, editors, and reviewers. Pilot testing and continuous updates are recommended for ongoing relevance and applicability of this RC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.