Background: Rapid economic reviews efficiently summarize economic evidence. However, reporting main findings without assessing quality and credibility can be misleading. The objective of this study was to develop a rapid cross-validation screening tool to evaluate economic evidence when conducting rapid economic literature reviews. Methods: This article outlines our reasoning and the theoretical concepts for developing the screening tool. Results: This cross-validation tool is a qualitative approach under a Bayesian framework that uses prior health economic evidence to gauge the credibility of the rapid economic review's findings. This article describes an application of this tool and highlights practical considerations for its development and deployment. Conclusion: This tool can provide a valuable screening instrument to evaluate the quality and credibility of the economic evidence.

Background Clinical pathways with multiple diagnostic tests are complex to model, but problematic and simplistic approaches are often used in economic evaluations. Methods We analyzed statistical methods of handling multiple diagnostic tests and provided guidance on applying these methods in economic modeling. We first introduced a statistical model to quantify the correlations between 2 tests and how those correlations can be incorporated within an economic model. We also presented the general form of conditional dependence among multiple tests. We then introduced net reclassification improvement (NRI), a measure that evaluates the added value of a new risk factor (e.g., biomarker) for risk prediction. We further provided 2 examples to illustrate the application of these methods. Results Our first example illustrated how to model an add-on test to an existing test, in the absence of a perfect reference standard. After accounting for the imperfect nature of both tests and the conditional dependence between tests, the potential health benefits from the additional test were reduced. This led to differential cost-effectiveness results when comparing models using the perfect test and conditional independence assumptions. The second example illustrated how to evaluate the added value of a new risk factor using the NRI measure. Using the new risk classification provides greater precision in risk prediction, and in the example, the strategy using the new risk classification with treatment for selected individuals led to more favorable cost-effectiveness results. Conclusions These innovative methods for handling multiple diagnostic tests have improved the methodology within the field and should be adopted to provide more accurate estimates within cost-effectiveness analyses. Highlights Economic evaluations of multiple diagnostic tests often apply problematic simplistic approaches, such as ignoring conditional dependence between 2 tests or assuming a perfect final test in the diagnostic pathway. We provided guidance on how to apply improved methods for economic modeling. We introduced methods to model conditional dependence between 2 imperfect tests. We used an example to illustrate how assumptions about perfect diagnostic test accuracy and conditional independence between tests affect cost-effectiveness. Compared with the results of the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve, net reclassification improvement has distinct advantages in measuring the added value of a new risk factor for model-based economic evaluation. Economic evaluations that appropriately account for the complexities of diagnostic test pathways can help decision makers ensure efficient use of resources.