Literature DB >> 21435924

Computer disease simulation models: integrating evidence for health policy.

Carolyn M Rutter1, Amy B Knudsen, Pari V Pandharipande.   

Abstract

Computer disease simulation models are increasingly being used to evaluate and inform health care decisions across medical disciplines. The aim of researchers who develop these models is to integrate and synthesize short-term outcomes and results from multiple sources to predict the long-term clinical outcomes and costs of different health care strategies. Policy makers, in turn, can use the predictions generated by disease models together with other evidence to make decisions related to health care practices and resource utilization. Models are particularly useful when the existing evidence does not yield obvious answers or does not provide answers to the questions of greatest interest, such as questions about the relative cost-effectiveness of different practices. This review focuses on models used to inform decisions about imaging technology, discussing the role of disease models for health policy development and providing a foundation for understanding the basic principles of disease modeling. This manuscript draws from the collective computed tomographic colonography modeling experience, reviewing 10 published investigations of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography relative to colonoscopy. The discussion focuses on implications of different modeling assumptions and difficulties that may be encountered when evaluating the quality of models. This underscores the importance of forging stronger collaborations between researchers who develop disease models and radiologists, to ensure that policy-level models accurately represent the experience of everyday clinical practices.
Copyright © 2011 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21435924      PMCID: PMC3125421          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  53 in total

1.  Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer?

Authors:  A Sonnenberg; F Delcò; P Bauerfeind
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Steven J Heitman; Braden J Manns; Robert J Hilsden; Andrew Fong; Stafford Dean; Joseph Romagnuolo
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-10-11       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Marjorie A Rosenberg; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Maureen A Smith; Stephen M Robinson; Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-06-07       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 1--Getting started.

Authors:  A S Detsky; G Naglie; M D Krahn; D Naimark; D A Redelmeier
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1997 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 5.  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

6.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.

Authors:  Donald A Berry; Kathleen A Cronin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Dennis G Fryback; Lauren Clarke; Marvin Zelen; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Andrei Y Yakovlev; J Dik F Habbema; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  The Markov process in medical prognosis.

Authors:  J R Beck; S G Pauker
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Projected national impact of colorectal cancer screening on clinical and economic outcomes and health services demand.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Kenneth Song
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 10.  Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience.

Authors:  Karl P Claxton; Mark J Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

View more
  2 in total

1.  Targeted screening of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer: results of a simulation model.

Authors:  Pari V Pandharipande; Curtis Heberle; Emily C Dowling; Chung Yin Kong; Angela Tramontano; Katherine E Perzan; William Brugge; Chin Hur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Imaging-based screening: understanding the controversies.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Pari V Pandharipande; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.959

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.