Table 2.

Assessment of the published economic evaluation of genomic sequencing based on the standard criteria

Serial	Checklist from Drummond et al. [18]	Soden et al. [3]	Valencia et al. [4]	van Nimwegen et al. [5]	Monroe et al. [7]	Joshi et al. [6]	Sabatini et al. [8]	Vissers et al. [12]	Tsiplova et al. [11]	Stark et al. [10]	Tan et al. [13]	Schofield et al. [9]
1	Was a well-defined question posed in answerable form? (Study place a decision-making context; examine both costs and effects; involve alternative comparison)	✓	X	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
2	Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given?	X	X	?	?	X	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
3	Was the effectiveness of the programme or services established? (Effectiveness data collected)	✓	X	X	X	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
4	Were all the important and relevant costs and consequences for each alternative identified? (Capital costs, operating costs included)	X	X	?	X	X	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
5	Were costs and consequences measured accurately in appropriate physical units?	✓	?	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
6	Were the cost and consequences valued credibly? (Using market value)	?	?	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
7	Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing? (Discounting and its justification given)	X	X	X	X	X	?	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
8	Was an incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed?	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	✓	✓	✓	✓
9	Was allowance made for uncertainty in the estimates of costs and consequences? (statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis)	X	X	✓	X	X	X	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
10	Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all issues of concern to users? (Ratio of costs to consequences, generalisability, adoption of preferred programme)	✓	X	X	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

Note: ✓ = yes; X = no; and ? = unclear