Literature DB >> 31531833

Can You Repeat That? Exploring the Definition of a Successful Model Replication in Health Economics.

Emma McManus1, David Turner2, Tracey Sach2.   

Abstract

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) modelling taskforce suggests decision models should be thoroughly reported and transparent. However, the level of transparency and indeed how transparency should be assessed are yet to be defined. One way may be to attempt to replicate the model and its outputs. The ability to replicate a decision model could demonstrate adequate reporting transparency. This review aims to explore published definitions of replication success across all scientific disciplines and to consider how such a definition should be tailored for use in health economic models. A literature review was conducted to identify published definitions of a 'successful replication'. Using these as a foundation, several definitions of replication success were constructed, to be applicable to replications of economic decision models, with the associated strengths and weaknesses of such definitions discussed. A substantial body of literature discussing replicability was found; however, relatively few studies, ten, explicitly defined a successful replication. These definitions varied from subjective assessments to expecting exactly the same results to be reproduced. Whilst the definitions that have been found may help to construct a definition specific to health economics, no definition was found that completely encompassed the unique requirements for decision models. Replication is widely discussed in other scientific disciplines; however, as of yet, there is no consensus on how replicable models should be within health economics or what constitutes a successful replication. Replication studies can demonstrate how transparently a model is reported, identify potential calculation errors and inform future reporting practices. It may therefore be a useful adjunct to other transparency or quality measures.

Year:  2019        PMID: 31531833     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00836-y

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


  34 in total

Review 1.  Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants.

Authors:  C Bruce Baker; Michael T Johnsrud; M Lynn Crismon; Robert A Rosenheck; Scott W Woods
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 9.319

2.  Research priorities. Shining light into black boxes.

Authors:  A Morin; J Urban; P D Adams; I Foster; A Sali; D Baker; P Sliz
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-04-13       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72).

Authors:  P M Clarke; A M Gray; A Briggs; R J Stevens; D R Matthews; R R Holman
Journal:  Diabetologia       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 10.122

5.  Failing the future: three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem's 'retroactive facilitation of recall' effect.

Authors:  Stuart J Ritchie; Richard Wiseman; Christopher C French
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Model Registration: A Call to Action.

Authors:  Christopher James Sampson; Tim Wrightson
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2017-06

7.  PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.

Authors: 
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Authors:  Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder
Journal:  Cost Eff Resour Alloc       Date:  2013-03-25

9.  Why most published research findings are false.

Authors:  John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2005-08-30       Impact factor: 11.613

10.  Computer Modeling of Diabetes and Its Transparency: A Report on the Eighth Mount Hood Challenge.

Authors:  Andrew J Palmer; Lei Si; Michelle Tew; Xinyang Hua; Michael S Willis; Christian Asseburg; Phil McEwan; José Leal; Alastair Gray; Volker Foos; Mark Lamotte; Talitha Feenstra; Patrick J O'Connor; Michael Brandle; Harry J Smolen; James C Gahn; William J Valentine; Richard F Pollock; Penny Breeze; Alan Brennan; Daniel Pollard; Wen Ye; William H Herman; Deanna J Isaman; Shihchen Kuo; Neda Laiteerapong; An Tran-Duy; Philip M Clarke
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  4 in total

1.  Improving Transparency in Decision Models: Current Issues and Potential Solutions.

Authors:  Paul Tappenden; J Jaime Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Characterizing the Validity and Real-World Utility of Health Technology Assessments in Healthcare: Future Directions Comment on "Problems and Promises of Health Technologies: The Role of Early Health Economic Modelling".

Authors:  Nadine K Zawadzki; Joel W Hay
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2020-08-01

3.  Replication of Published Health Economic Obesity Models: Assessment of Facilitators, Hurdles and Reproduction Success.

Authors:  Björn Schwander; Mark Nuijten; Silvia Evers; Mickaël Hiligsmann
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Does the Structure Matter? An External Validation and Health Economic Results Comparison of Event Simulation Approaches in Severe Obesity.

Authors:  Björn Schwander; Klaus Kaier; Mickaël Hiligsmann; Silvia Evers; Mark Nuijten
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 4.558

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.