Analytical approach:
A decision-analytic model was used to synthesise evidence from published studies, trial data and meta-analyses. The authors did not state the study perspective. The analytical time frame was 12 months following diagnosis.
Effectiveness data:
: Effectiveness data were derived from relevant studies that published diagnostic evidence during randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses. The main clinical effectiveness estimates were accuracy of diagnostic tests indicated by their sensitivity and specificity. Cardiovascular events and risk of mortality were measured.
Monetary benefit and utility valuations:
Utility scores were derived from two relevant published studies where utility values were available for myocardial infarction, negative test result, true-positive test result and false-positive test results.
Measure of benefit:
The measure of benefit was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
Cost data:
Direct medical costs included the cost of the different diagnostic procedures. Current Procedural Codes were used to provide procedural, monitoring and therapeutic costs. Weighted average costs from diagnostic related groups were used for hospitalisation and further treatments. Costs were reported in 2010 US dollars ($).
Analysis of uncertainty:
One-way sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test variation in type of stress-based test used and incidence of event rates and costs. Results were presented in tables by prevalence of coronary artery disease: 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and 30%.