ReviewPharmacoEconomics2018
Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The conceptualisation of cardiometabolic disease policy model in the UK.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Model parameters influencing the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure: evidence from a systematic literature review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Pooled it
- Health Economic Models for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Methodological Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic review of health economic evaluation of robot-assisted hip and knee arthroplasty.Health economics review · 2025Review
- Guidelines for the use of economic evaluation to inform policies around access to treatment for kidney failure.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2025Review
- A systematic review of the current application status of decision-analytical models in the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of targeted therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Article
- Unravelling the Association Between Uncertainties in Model-based Economic Analysis and Funding Recommendations of Medicines in Australia.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Diagnostic Tests.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Article
- Hierarchical Structure Model of Safety Risk Factors in New Coastal Towns: A Systematic Analysis Using the DEMATEL-ISM-SNA Method.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Structuring a conceptual model for cost-effectiveness analysis of frailty interventions.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In countries such as Australia, the UK and Canada, decisions on whether to fund new health technologies are commonly informed by decision analytic models. While the impact of making inappropriate structural choices/assumptions on model predictions is well noted, there is a lack of clarity about the definition of key structural aspects, the process of developing model structure (including the development of conceptual models) and uncertainty associated with the structuring process (structural uncertainty) in guidelines developed by national funding bodies. This forms the focus of this article. Building on the reports of good modelling practice, and recognising the fundamental role of model structuring within the model development process, we specified key structural choices and provided ideas about model structuring for the future direction. This will help to further standardise guidelines developed by national funding bodies, with potential impact on transparency, comprehensiveness and consistency of model structuring. We argue that the process of model structuring and structural sensitivity analysis should be documented in a more systematic and transparent way in submissions to national funding bodies. Within the decision-making process, the development of conceptual models and presentation of all key structural choices would mean that national funding bodies could be more confident of maximising value for money when making public funding decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30030816What OpenQuestion holds
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.