Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16605282›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2006

Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment.

Zoë Philips, Laura Bojke, Mark Sculpher, Karl Claxton, Su Golder

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03013257 (A Randomized, Open-label, Parallel-group Study to Explore the Efficacy of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound), which is not on this map. Cited by 214 papers, 62 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
214citing papers in PubMed, 62 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.

NCT03013257 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized, Open-label, Parallel-group Study to Explore the Efficacy of High-intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Versus Fixed-dose Radioiodine-131 in the Treatment of Relapsed Graves' Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2017 to 2020Enrolled240ConditionsGraves DiseaseArmsEchopulse
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

214 citing papers in PubMed, 62 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Medical waste management within the Green Hospital approach: a systematic review of direct, contextual, and transferable evidence.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

154 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Zoë PhilipsSchool of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Zoe.Philips@Nottingham.ac.uk
Laura Bojke
Mark Sculpher
Karl Claxton
Su Golder

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U145079308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA) has increased dramatically in recent years. Several guidelines for best practice have emerged in the literature; however, there is no agreed standard for what constitutes a 'good model' or how models should be formally assessed. The objective of this paper is to identify, review and consolidate existing guidelines on the use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of HTA and to develop a consistent framework against which the quality of models may be assessed. The review and resultant framework are summarised under the three key themes of Structure, Data and Consistency. 'Structural' aspects relate to the scope and mathematical structure of the model including the strategies under evaluation. Issues covered under the general heading of 'Data' include data identification methods and how uncertainty should be addressed. 'Consistency' relates to the overall quality of the model. The review of existing guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, such as the need for transparency, they are contradictory in other areas. Particular areas of disagreement are how data should be incorporated into models and how uncertainty should be assessed. For the purpose of evaluation, the resultant framework is applied to a decision-analytic model developed as part of an appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK. As a further assessment, the review based on the framework is compared with an assessment provided by an independent experienced modeller not using the framework. It is hoped that the framework developed here may form part of the appraisals process for assessment bodies such as NICE and decision models submitted to peer review journals. However, given the speed with which decision-modelling methodology advances, there is a need for its continual update.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansInterferon-betaModels, EconomicMultiple SclerosisPractice Guidelines as TopicTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUncertaintyInterferon-beta

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.