Rapid ACCE: Experience with a rapid and structured approach for evaluating gene-based testing

Purpose: To present the rapid-ACCE model and report our early experience of using the ACCE structure to guide systematic reviews for the rapid evaluation of emerging genetic tests.Methods: A rapid-ACCE review uses the same 44 questions that were developed for the full-ACCE model to guide the conduct of systematic review. We combined published literature with unpublished data to estimate test performance and input from experts to help clarify qualitative issues. As questions were answered, gaps in knowledge were identified and articulated. The draft review was then sent to outside reviewers whose comments were incorporated into the final document.Results: We conducted two reviews, both of which were completed in 6 months or less (averaging about 100 hours of primary analyst time), within modest budgets. In addition to defining the current state of knowledge about the tests, the identified gaps are expected to help define the research agendas. Both collaborating experts and study sponsors valued both the process and outcomes from the reviews.Conclusions: Based on our early experiences, it is possible to conduct rapid systematic reviews within the ACCE structure of some emerging genetic tests to produce summaries of available evidence and identification of gaps.

[1]  D. Sackett.  Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM: 2nd ed , 2000 .

[2]  S. Fullerton,et al.  Dissecting complex disease: the quest for the Philosopher's Stone? , 2006, International journal of epidemiology.

[3]  Nicola Brunetti-Pierri,et al.  Inborn errors of metabolism: the flux from Mendelian to complex diseases , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[4]  Elaine Lyon,et al.  Developing a Sustainable Process to Provide Quality Control Materials for Genetic Testing , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. , 2004, Family practice.

[6]  G. Hankey,et al.  Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with common thrombophilia: a systematic review. , 2006, Archives of internal medicine.

[7]  J. Vandenbroucke,et al.  Population screening for single genes that codetermine common diseases in adulthood had limited effects. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  D. Rennie,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative , 2003, Clinical biochemistry.

[9]  D. Cook,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  M. Khoury,et al.  Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease , 2003 .

[11]  J. Jura,et al.  Regulatory mechanisms of gene expression: complexity with elements of deterministic chaos. , 2006, Acta biochimica Polonica.

[12]  S. Boccia,et al.  Human Genome Epidemiology: A Scientific Foundation for Using Genetic Information to Improve Health and Prevent Disease , 2005, Preventing Chronic Disease.

[13]  J. Emery,et al.  How can the evaluation of genetic tests be enhanced? Lessons learned from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic tests in the United Kingdom , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[14]  M. Doherty,et al.  Guidelines for management of osteoarthritis published by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism: why are they so different? , 2003, Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America.

[15]  M Greaves,et al.  Screening for thrombophilia in high-risk situations: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Thrombosis: Risk and Economic Assessment of Thrombophilia Screening (TREATS) study. , 2006, Health technology assessment.

[16]  E R McCabe,et al.  Phenotypes of patients with "simple" Mendelian disorders are complex traits: thresholds, modifiers, and systems dynamics. , 2000, American journal of human genetics.