BACKGROUND: Decision-analytic modeling (DAM) has been increasingly used to aid decision making in health care. The growing use of modeling in economic evaluations has led to increased scrutiny of the methods used. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify and critically assess good practice guidelines, with particular emphasis on contemporary developments. METHODS: A systematic review of English language articles was undertaken to identify articles presenting guidance for good practice in DAM in the evaluation of health care. The inclusion criteria were articles providing guidance or criteria against which to assess good practice in DAM and studies providing criteria or elements for good practice in some areas of DAM. The review covered the period January 1990 to March 2014 and included the following electronic bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, Cochrane Methodology Register and Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, and PubMed (Embase). Additional studies were identified by searching references. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles were included in this review. A practical five-dimension framework was developed that describe the key elements of good research practice that should be considered and reported to increase the credibility of results obtained from DAM in the evaluation of health care. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to critically review all available guidelines and statements of good practice in DAM since 2006. The development of good practice guidelines is an ongoing process, and important efforts have been made to identify what is good practice and to keep these guidelines up to date.
BACKGROUND: Decision-analytic modeling (DAM) has been increasingly used to aid decision making in health care. The growing use of modeling in economic evaluations has led to increased scrutiny of the methods used. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify and critically assess good practice guidelines, with particular emphasis on contemporary developments. METHODS: A systematic review of English language articles was undertaken to identify articles presenting guidance for good practice in DAM in the evaluation of health care. The inclusion criteria were articles providing guidance or criteria against which to assess good practice in DAM and studies providing criteria or elements for good practice in some areas of DAM. The review covered the period January 1990 to March 2014 and included the following electronic bibliographic databases: Cochrane Library, Cochrane Methodology Register and Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, MEDLINE, and PubMed (Embase). Additional studies were identified by searching references. RESULTS: Thirty-three articles were included in this review. A practical five-dimension framework was developed that describe the key elements of good research practice that should be considered and reported to increase the credibility of results obtained from DAM in the evaluation of health care. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to critically review all available guidelines and statements of good practice in DAM since 2006. The development of good practice guidelines is an ongoing process, and important efforts have been made to identify what is good practice and to keep these guidelines up to date.
Authors: Shari Krishnaratne; Hannah Littlecott; Kerstin Sell; Jacob Burns; Julia E Rabe; Jan M Stratil; Tim Litwin; Clemens Kreutz; Michaela Coenen; Karin Geffert; Anna Helen Boger; Ani Movsisyan; Suzie Kratzer; Carmen Klinger; Katharina Wabnitz; Brigitte Strahwald; Ben Verboom; Eva Rehfuess; Renke L Biallas; Caroline Jung-Sievers; Stephan Voss; Lisa M Pfadenhauer Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-17
Authors: Christopher J Cadham; Marie Knoll; Luz María Sánchez-Romero; K Michael Cummings; Clifford E Douglas; Alex Liber; David Mendez; Rafael Meza; Ritesh Mistry; Aylin Sertkaya; Nargiz Travis; David T Levy Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Jan L Brozek; Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Elie A Akl; James M Bowen; John Bucher; Weihsueh A Chiu; Mark Cronin; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Maicon Falavigna; Gordon H Guyatt; Ami A Gordon; Michele Hilton Boon; Raymond C W Hutubessy; Manuela A Joore; Vittal Katikireddi; Judy LaKind; Miranda Langendam; Veena Manja; Kristen Magnuson; Alexander G Mathioudakis; Joerg Meerpohl; Dominik Mertz; Roman Mezencev; Rebecca Morgan; Gian Paolo Morgano; Reem Mustafa; Martin O'Flaherty; Grace Patlewicz; John J Riva; Margarita Posso; Andrew Rooney; Paul M Schlosser; Lisa Schwartz; Ian Shemilt; Jean-Eric Tarride; Kristina A Thayer; Katya Tsaioun; Luke Vale; John Wambaugh; Jessica Wignall; Ashley Williams; Feng Xie; Yuan Zhang; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Padraig Dixon; George Davey Smith; Stephanie von Hinke; Neil M Davies; William Hollingworth Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Xavier Ghislain Léon Victor Pouwels; Bram L T Ramaekers; Manuela A Joore Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 4.872