Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10977390›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2000

Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models.

C McCabe, S Dixon

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Performance of a mathematical model to forecast lives saved from HIV treatment expansion in resource-limited settings.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2015
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

C McCabeSheffield Health Economics Group, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, England. c.mccabe@sheffield.ac.uk
S Dixon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing body of recent work has identified several problems with economic evaluations undertaken alongside controlled trials that can have potentially serious impacts on the ability of decision makers to draw valid conclusions. At the same time, the use of cost-effectiveness models has been drawn into question, due to the alleged arbitrary nature of their construction. This has led researchers to try and identify ways of improving the quality of cost-effectiveness models through identifying 'best practice', producing guidelines for peer review and identifying tests of validity. This paper investigates the issue of testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models or, perhaps more appropriately, whether it is possible to objectively measure the quality of a cost-effectiveness model. A review of the literature shows that there is much confusion over the different aspects of modelling that should be assessed in respect to model quality, and how this should be done. We develop a framework for assessing model quality in terms of: (i) the structure of the model; (ii) the inputs of the model; (iii) the results of the model; and (iv) the value of the model to the decision maker. Quality assessment is investigated within this framework, and it is argued that it is doubtful that a set of objective tests of validity will ever be produced, or indeed that such an approach would be desirable. The lack of any clearly definable and objective tests of validity means that the other parts of the evaluation process need to be given greater emphasis. Quality assurance forms a small part of a broader process and is best implemented in the form of good practice guidelines. A set of key guidelines are presented.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisModels, EconomicHumansPractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID10977390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.