Literature DB >> 15645319

The need for microsimulation to evaluate osteoporosis interventions.

David J Vanness1, Anna N A Tosteson, Sherine E Gabriel, L Joseph Melton.   

Abstract

Simulations play an increasingly important role in the evaluation of osteoporosis interventions. Existing evaluations have been based on "reduced-form" cohort simulations that do not reflect the complexity and heterogeneity of osteoporosis and its outcomes. Such simplified models offer parsimony and ease of use, but they also are limited in their ability to explain and extrapolate outcomes in a way that is most useful for both clinical and health policy decision makers. Alternatively, evaluations could be based on "structural" microsimulations, which explicitly model the underlying biology of osteoporosis at the individual level. The structural approach presents technical challenges, including the need to obtain more-detailed data and the requirement that underlying biological models be validated. However, evaluations based on structural microsimulation may ultimately provide substantially more useful information, resulting in improved decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15645319     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-004-1826-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  33 in total

Review 1.  Exercise, mobility and aging.

Authors:  M J Daley; W L Spinks
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 2.  A review of economic evaluation in osteoporosis.

Authors:  A Cranney; D Coyle; V Welch; K M Lee; P Tugwell
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res       Date:  1999-12

3.  Bone turnover matters: the raloxifene treatment paradox of dramatic decreases in vertebral fractures without commensurate increases in bone density.

Authors:  B Lawrence Riggs; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 6.741

4.  Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals.

Authors:  K Claxton
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life.

Authors:  M J Buxton; M F Drummond; B A Van Hout; R L Prince; T A Sheldon; T Szucs; M Vray
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 6.  Bone dynamics in metabolic bone disease.

Authors:  H M Frost
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1966-09       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 7.  Biomechanics of osteoporosis and vertebral fracture.

Authors:  E R Myers; S E Wilson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Efficacy of raloxifene on vertebral fracture risk reduction in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: four-year results from a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Pierre D Delmas; Kristine E Ensrud; Jonathan D Adachi; Kristine D Harper; Somnath Sarkar; Carlo Gennari; Jean-Yves Reginster; Huibert A P Pols; Robert R Recker; Steven T Harris; Wentao Wu; Harry K Genant; Dennis M Black; Richard Eastell
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.958

9.  The effects of parathyroid hormone and alendronate alone or in combination in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Authors:  Dennis M Black; Susan L Greenspan; Kristine E Ensrud; Lisa Palermo; Joan A McGowan; Thomas F Lang; Patrick Garnero; Mary L Bouxsein; John P Bilezikian; Clifford J Rosen
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-09-20       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Mortality, disability, and nursing home use for persons with and without hip fracture: a population-based study.

Authors:  Cynthia L Leibson; Anna N A Tosteson; Sherine E Gabriel; Jeanine E Ransom; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 5.562

View more
  3 in total

1.  Population- versus cohort-based modelling approaches.

Authors:  Olivier Ethgen; Baudouin Standaert
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Alan M Zaslavsky; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Comparison of models for predicting outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease focusing on microsimulation.

Authors:  Masoud Amiri; Roya Kelishadi
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2012-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.