Literature DB >> 34013440

Overview and Use of Tools for Selecting Modelling Techniques in Health Economic Studies.

Huajie Jin1, Stewart Robinson2, Wenru Shang3, Evanthia Achilla4, David Aceituno5, Sarah Byford5.   

Abstract

The availability and use of tools to guide the choice of modelling technique are not well understood. Our study aims to review existing tools and explore the use of those tools in health economic models. Two reviews and one case study were conducted. Review 1 aimed to identify tools based on expert opinion and citation searching and explore the value of the tools for health economic models. Review 2, based on citation searching, aimed to describe how those tools have been used in health economic models. Both reviews were conducted using Web of Science and Scopus. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. A case study, focused on economic evaluations of antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia, was conducted to compare the modelling techniques used by existing models with modelling techniques recommended by identified tools. Seven tools were identified, of which the revised Brennan's toolkit, was assessed to be the most appropriate for health economic models. The seven tools were cited 126 times in publications reporting health economic models. Only 17 of these (13.5%) reported that they used the tool(s) to guide the choice of modelling technique. Application of these tools suggested discrete event simulation is most appropriate for modelling antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia, but discrete event simulation was only used by 17% of existing models. There is considerable inconsistency between the modelling techniques used by existing models and modelling techniques recommended by tools. It is recommended that for future modelling studies the choice of modelling technique should be justified, this can be achieved by the application of model selection tools, such as the revised Brennan's toolkit. Future research is required to explore the barriers to using model selection tools in health economic models and to update existing tools and make them easier to use.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34013440     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01038-1

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


  37 in total

1.  Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies.

Authors:  Milton C Weinstein; Bernie O'Brien; John Hornberger; Joseph Jackson; Magnus Johannesson; Chris McCabe; Bryan R Luce
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 2.  Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.

Authors:  Z Philips; L Ginnelly; M Sculpher; K Claxton; S Golder; R Riemsma; N Woolacoot; J Glanville
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach.

Authors:  Pelham Barton; Stirling Bryan; Suzanne Robinson
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2004-04

4.  Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation.

Authors:  J Jaime Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  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

6.  Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party.

Authors:  M F Drummond; T O Jefferson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-08-03

7.  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:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Discretely Integrated Condition Event (DICE) Simulation for Pharmacoeconomics.

Authors:  J Jaime Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Modelling approaches: the case of schizophrenia.

Authors:  Bart M S Heeg; Joep Damen; Erik Buskens; Sue Caleo; Frank de Charro; Ben A van Hout
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Development of modelling method selection tool for health services management: from problem structuring methods to modelling and simulation methods.

Authors:  Gyuchan T Jun; Zoe Morris; Tillal Eldabi; Paul Harper; Aisha Naseer; Brijesh Patel; John P Clarkson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  1 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of hemodialysis plus hemoperfusion versus hemodialysis alone in adult patients with end-stage renal disease in China.

Authors:  Haiyin Wang; Huajie Jin; Wendi Cheng; Xiaoxiao Qin; Yashuang Luo; Xin Liu; Yuyan Fu; Gengru Jiang; Wei Lu; Chunlin Jin; Mark Pennington
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-07
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.