Testing Costs

2010 ◽  
pp. 49-62
Keyword(s):  
Testing Costs

Integrating Epidemiological Information into MRI Reports Reduces Ensuing Radiologic Testing Costs Among Patients with Low Back Pain: A Controlled Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 365-368
Author(s):  
William B. Weeks ◽  
Jason Pike ◽  
Christopher J. Schaeffer ◽  
Mathew J. Devine ◽  
John M. Ventura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Epidemiological Information ◽  
Testing Costs

Modeling software testing costs and risks using fuzzy logic paradigm

2007 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 817-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avner Engel ◽  
Mark Last
Keyword(s):  
Fuzzy Logic ◽  
Software Testing ◽  
Modeling Software ◽  
Testing Costs

scholarly journals Clinical Ordering Practices of the SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test at a Large Academic Medical Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joesph R Wiencek ◽  
Carter L Head ◽  
Costi D Sifri ◽  
Andrew S Parsons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Antibody Test ◽  
The United States ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Antibody Testing ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Public Health Epidemiology ◽  
Testing Costs

Abstract Background The novel severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) originated in December 2019 and has now infected almost 5 million people in the United States. In the spring of 2020, private laboratories and some hospitals began antibody testing despite limited evidence-based guidance. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing from May 14, 2020, to June 15, 2020, at a large academic medical center, 1 of the first in the United States to provide antibody testing capability to individual clinicians in order to identify clinician-described indications for antibody testing compared with current expert-based guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Results Of 444 individual antibody test results, the 2 most commonly described testing indications, apart from public health epidemiology studies (n = 223), were for patients with a now resolved COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 105) with no previous molecular testing and for asymptomatic patients believed to have had a past exposure to a person with COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 60). The rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing among those indications consistent with current IDSA and CDC guidance was 17% compared with 5% (P < .0001) among those indications inconsistent with such guidance. Testing inconsistent with current expert-based guidance accounted for almost half of testing costs. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate a dissociation between clinician-described indications for testing and expert-based guidance and a significantly different rate of positive testing between these 2 groups. Clinical curiosity and patient preference appear to have played a significant role in testing decisions and substantially contributed to testing costs.

An audit of cardiac genetic testing costs in a regional genetics unit

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. e16
Author(s):  
Ronan A ◽  
Lawler R ◽  
Ingrey A
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Testing Costs

Cementing Through Coiled Tubing Decreases Well Completion and Testing Costs

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Chariag ◽  
M. Shaheen ◽  
A. Al-Suwaidi
Keyword(s):  
Well Completion ◽  
Coiled Tubing ◽  
Testing Costs

Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer prevention.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18318-e18318
Author(s):  
Eman Biltaji ◽  
Trang H. Au ◽  
Brandon Walker ◽  
Jennifer Ose ◽  
Cornelia M Ulrich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Risk Population ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life ◽  
Testing Costs

e18318 Background: Colonoscopy is the “gold standard” for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, adherence rates are low and detection is not optimal. Concomitant aspirin chemoprevention is recommended by US Preventive Task Force, but bleeding complications can be limiting. Variant genotypes in aspirin metabolism can modify CRC and adenoma risk. Genotype guided aspirin (ggASA) use will identify a targeted average-risk population for maximal aspirin benefit while minimizing adverse events rates compared to the general population. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of primary chemoprevention in CRC using ggASA compared to no intervention, and colonoscopy ±general aspirin in healthy average-risk individuals. Methods: Our Markov decision analytical model consisted of 5 possible health states: no CRC/polyps, adenoma, pre-clinical CRC, CRC, and death. Model probabilities for CRC and its prevalence were estimated using SEER database and published literature. A microsimulation of 10,000 individuals aged 50-64 years was used to estimate cost-effectiveness from US payer perspective over lifetime. One way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and model validation results will be reported in the final poster. Results: Our results suggest that compared to colonoscopy and no intervention, ggASA was associated with fewer CRC cases, and CRC-related deaths and MI cases. Compared to colonoscopy + general aspirin, ggASA was associated with fewer bleeding events, similar rates of CRC and CRC-related deaths, and fewer MI cases prevented. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, ggASA use over a lifetime had the lowest costs and highest quality adjusted life years gained compared to other strategies, if testing costs were ignored. Once genetic testing costs exceeds $63, colonoscopy + general aspirin becomes the most cost effective strategy. Between genetic testing cost of $63-283, the costs of using ggASA per quality adjusted life year gained is below $100,000. Conclusions: Genotype-guided aspirin use precisely identifies an average-risk population, and lowers adverse events rates compared to general aspirin. The economic value of genotype-guided aspirin is dependent on the genetic testing costs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document