Literature DB >> 16605282

Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment.

Zoë Philips1, Laura Bojke, Mark Sculpher, Karl Claxton, Su Golder.   

Abstract

The use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA) has increased dramatically in recent years. Several guidelines for best practice have emerged in the literature; however, there is no agreed standard for what constitutes a 'good model' or how models should be formally assessed. The objective of this paper is to identify, review and consolidate existing guidelines on the use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of HTA and to develop a consistent framework against which the quality of models may be assessed. The review and resultant framework are summarised under the three key themes of Structure, Data and Consistency. 'Structural' aspects relate to the scope and mathematical structure of the model including the strategies under evaluation. Issues covered under the general heading of 'Data' include data identification methods and how uncertainty should be addressed. 'Consistency' relates to the overall quality of the model. The review of existing guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, such as the need for transparency, they are contradictory in other areas. Particular areas of disagreement are how data should be incorporated into models and how uncertainty should be assessed. For the purpose of evaluation, the resultant framework is applied to a decision-analytic model developed as part of an appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK. As a further assessment, the review based on the framework is compared with an assessment provided by an independent experienced modeller not using the framework. It is hoped that the framework developed here may form part of the appraisals process for assessment bodies such as NICE and decision models submitted to peer review journals. However, given the speed with which decision-modelling methodology advances, there is a need for its continual update.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16605282     DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  20 in total

1.  Evaluating evidence from a decision analysis.

Authors:  S D Ramsey
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct

2.  Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling. Principles and practices--utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal.

Authors:  Javier Soto
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 3.  Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application.

Authors:  M Sculpher; E Fenwick; K Claxton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models.

Authors:  C McCabe; S Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Reporting format for economic evaluation. Part II: Focus on modelling studies.

Authors:  M J Nuijten; M H Pronk; M J Brorens; Y A Hekster; J H Lockefeer; P A de Smet; G Bonsel; A van der Kuy
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Authors:  Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Michael Drummond
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-08-31       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  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

8.  Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models.

Authors:  F A Sonnenberg; M S Roberts; J Tsevat; J B Wong; M Barry; D L Kent
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 9.  Long-term treatment of multiple sclerosis with interferon-beta may be cost effective.

Authors:  M Kendrick; K I Johnson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Systematic validation of disease models for pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

Authors:  P P Sendi; B A Craig; D Pfluger; A Gafni; H C Bucher
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.431

View more
  142 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.  Cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programmes : a focused review of modelling approaches.

Authors:  Sun-Young Kim; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice.

Authors:  Wolf H Rogowski; Scott D Grosse; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Comparison of Markov model and discrete-event simulation techniques for HIV.

Authors:  Kit N Simpson; Alvin Strassburger; Walter J Jones; Birgitta Dietz; Rukmini Rajagopalan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Economic evaluation of smoking-cessation therapies: a critical and systematic review of simulation models.

Authors:  Kristian Bolin
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  The use of pharmacoeconomic evidence to support formulary decision making in Saudi Arabia: Methodological recommendations.

Authors:  Sinaa A Al Aqeel; Mohammed Al-Sultan
Journal:  Saudi Pharm J       Date:  2011-12-24       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Comparing three software tools for implementing markov models for health economic evaluations.

Authors:  Petra Menn; Rolf Holle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

Authors:  Federico Augustovski; Cynthia Iglesias; Andrea Manca; Michael Drummond; Adolfo Rubinstein; Sebastián García Martí
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Conceptual framework for standard economic evaluation of physical activity programs in primary prevention.

Authors:  Silke B Wolfenstetter
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2011-12

Review 10.  Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Lesley Uttley; Ben Kearns; Shijie Ren; Matt Stevenson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.