Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22283692›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2012

Population- versus cohort-based modelling approaches.

Olivier Ethgen, Baudouin Standaert

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 3. How comprehensive can we be in the economic assessment of vaccines?Journal of market access & health policy · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The value of innovation under value-based pricing.Journal of market access & health policy · 2016
    Article
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.

Olivier EthgenDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Lige, Lige, Belgium. o.ethgen@ulg.ac.be
Baudouin Standaert

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While no single type of model can provide adequate answers under all circumstances, any modelling endeavour should incorporate three fundamental considerations in any decision-making question: the target population, the disease and the intervention characteristics. A target population is likely to be characterized by various types of heterogeneity and a dynamic evolution over time. It is therefore important to adequately capture these population effects on the results of a model. There are essentially two different approaches in modelling a population over time: a cohort-based approach and a population-based approach. In a cohort-based model, a closed group of individuals who have at least one specific characteristic or experience in common over a defined period of time is run through a state transition process. The cohort is generally composed of a hypothetical number of representative or 'average' individuals (i.e. the target population is considered to be a homogeneous group). The population-based approach projects the evolution of the estimated prevalent target population and intends to reflect as much as possible the demographic, epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the prevalent target population relevant for the decision problem. A cohort-based approach is generally used in most published healthcare decision models. However, this choice is rarely discussed by modellers. In this article, we challenge this assumption. To address the underlying decision problem, we affirm it is crucial that modellers consider the characteristics of the target population. Then, they could opt for using the most appropriate approach. Decision makers should also understand the impact on the results of both types of models in order to make informed healthcare decisions.

Indexed as

Decision MakingModels, TheoreticalResearch DesignCohort StudiesDelivery of Health CareHumans

Identifiers

PMID22283692

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.