Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20195613›Full record

ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2010

[Modeling in value-based medicine].

A S Neubauer, C Hirneiss, A Kampik

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

A S NeubauerAugenklinik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, Deutschland. Aljoscha.Neubauer@med.uni-muenchen.de
C Hirneiss
A Kampik

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modeling plays an important role in value-based medicine (VBM). It allows decision support by predicting potential clinical and economic consequences, frequently combining different sources of evidence. Based on relevant publications and examples focusing on ophthalmology the key economic modeling methods are explained and definitions are given. The most frequently applied model types are decision trees, Markov models, and discrete event simulation (DES) models. Model validation includes besides verifying internal validity comparison with other models (external validity) and ideally validation of its predictive properties. The existing uncertainty with any modeling should be clearly stated. This is true for economic modeling in VBM as well as when using disease risk models to support clinical decisions. In economic modeling uni- and multivariate sensitivity analyses are usually applied; the key concepts here are tornado plots and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Given the existing uncertainty, modeling helps to make better informed decisions than without this additional information.

Indexed as

Models, EconometricRelative Value ScalesCost-Benefit AnalysisEvidence-Based MedicineGermanyNational Health ProgramsOphthalmologyQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

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.