Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27129572›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2016

Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer.

Pieter T de Boer, Geert W J Frederix, Talitha L Feenstra, Pepijn Vemer

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Model Registration: A Call to Action.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2017
    Article
  10. Model Validation: Has it's Time Come?PharmacoEconomics · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pieter T de BoerDepartment of Pharmacy, PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics (PTEE), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Geert W J FrederixPharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Talitha L FeenstraDepartment of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Pepijn VemerDepartment of Pharmacy, PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics (PTEE), University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. p.vemer@rug.nl.
University of Groningen · NLNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransparent reporting of validation efforts of health economic models give stakeholders better insight into the credibility of model outcomes. In this study we reviewed recently published studies on seasonal influenza and early breast cancer in order to gain insight into the reporting of model validation efforts in the overall health economic literature.

methodsA literature search was performed in Pubmed and Embase to retrieve health economic modelling studies published between 2008 and 2014. Reporting on model validation was evaluated by checking for the word validation, and by using AdViSHE (Assessment of the Validation Status of Health Economic decision models), a tool containing a structured list of relevant items for validation. Additionally, we contacted corresponding authors to ask whether more validation efforts were performed other than those reported in the manuscripts.

resultsA total of 53 studies on seasonal influenza and 41 studies on early breast cancer were included in our review. The word validation was used in 16 studies (30 %) on seasonal influenza and 23 studies (56 %) on early breast cancer; however, in a minority of studies, this referred to a model validation technique. Fifty-seven percent of seasonal influenza studies and 71 % of early breast cancer studies reported one or more validation techniques. Cross-validation of study outcomes was found most often. A limited number of studies reported on model validation efforts, although good examples were identified. Author comments indicated that more validation techniques were performed than those reported in the manuscripts.

conclusionsAlthough validation is deemed important by many researchers, this is not reflected in the reporting habits of health economic modelling studies. Systematic reporting of validation efforts would be desirable to further enhance decision makers' confidence in health economic models and their outcomes.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesModels, EconomicBreast NeoplasmsDecision MakingFemaleHumansInfluenza, HumanResearch DesignValidation Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27129572
PMCPMC4980411
OpenAlexW2344563532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.