Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28247184›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2017

Bayesian Methods for Calibrating Health Policy Models: A Tutorial.

Nicolas A Menzies, Djøra I Soeteman, Ankur Pandya, Jane J Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
27.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Metamodel-Based General-Purpose Autocalibration Tool for Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Emulator-Based Bayesian Calibration of the CISNET Colorectal Cancer Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Emulator-based Bayesian calibration of the CISNET colorectal cancer models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicolas A MenziesDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. nmenzies@hsph.harvard.edu.
Djøra I SoetemanCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Ankur PandyaCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Jane J KimCenter for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Harvard University · USHarvard Global Health Institute · US

Funding

Evaluating health and economic effects of targeted strategies in TB/HIVR01AI112438 · NIAID · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI COHEN, THEODORE H, SALOMON, JOSHUA A · 2014 to 2017
$2.4M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI112438
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mathematical simulation models are commonly used to inform health policy decisions. These health policy models represent the social and biological mechanisms that determine health and economic outcomes, combine multiple sources of evidence about how policy alternatives will impact those outcomes, and synthesize outcomes into summary measures salient for the policy decision. Calibrating these health policy models to fit empirical data can provide face validity and improve the quality of model predictions. Bayesian methods provide powerful tools for model calibration. These methods summarize information relevant to a particular policy decision into (1) prior distributions for model parameters, (2) structural assumptions of the model, and (3) a likelihood function created from the calibration data, combining these different sources of evidence via Bayes' theorem. This article provides a tutorial on Bayesian approaches for model calibration, describing the theoretical basis for Bayesian calibration approaches as well as pragmatic considerations that arise in the tasks of creating calibration targets, estimating the posterior distribution, and obtaining results to inform the policy decision. These considerations, as well as the specific steps for implementing the calibration, are described in the context of an extended worked example about the policy choice to provide (or not provide) treatment for a hypothetical infectious disease. Given the many simplifications and subjective decisions required to create prior distributions, model structure, and likelihood, calibration should be considered an exercise in creating a reasonable model that produces valid evidence for policy, rather than as a technique for identifying a unique theoretically optimal summary of the evidence.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremHealth PolicyModels, TheoreticalCalibrationDecision MakingHumansLikelihood FunctionsPolicy Making

Identifiers

PMID28247184
PMCPMC5448142
OpenAlexW2594816818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.