Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31422772›Full record

GuidelineBMC medicine2019

Guidelines for multi-model comparisons of the impact of infectious disease interventions.

Saskia den Boon, Mark Jit, Marc Brisson, Graham Medley, Philippe Beutels, Richard White, Stefan Flasche, T Déirdre Hollingsworth, Tini Garske, Virginia E Pitzer and 5 more

Abstract readGuideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in BMC medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Coordinating collaborative infectious disease modeling projects with the hubverse.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  11. Cost-effectiveness of respiratory syncytial virus vaccination strategies for older Canadian adults: A multi-model comparison.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Multiple models for outbreak decision support in the face of uncertainty.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Saskia den BoonDepartment of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, CH-1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Mark JitCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Marc BrissonDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Graham MedleyCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Philippe BeutelsCentre for Health Economics Research & Modelling Infectious Diseases, Vaccine & Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Richard WhiteCentre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Disease, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Stefan FlascheDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
T Déirdre HollingsworthBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tini GarskeFaculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Virginia E PitzerDepartment of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA.
Martine HoogendoornInstitute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Oliver GeffenFaculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Andrew ClarkDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jane KimDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Raymond HutubessyDepartment of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, CH-1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland. hutubessyr@who.int.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P002404/1Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1Wellcome Trust 208812/Z/17/ZWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the increasing popularity of multi-model comparison studies and their ability to inform policy recommendations, clear guidance on how to conduct multi-model comparisons is not available. Herein, we present guidelines to provide a structured approach to comparisons of multiple models of interventions against infectious diseases. The primary target audience for these guidelines are researchers carrying out model comparison studies and policy-makers using model comparison studies to inform policy decisions.

methodsThe consensus process used for the development of the guidelines included a systematic review of existing model comparison studies on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination, a 2-day meeting and guideline development workshop during which mathematical modellers from different disease areas critically discussed and debated the guideline content and wording, and several rounds of comments on sequential versions of the guidelines by all authors.

resultsThe guidelines provide principles for multi-model comparisons, with specific practice statements on what modellers should do for six domains. The guidelines provide explanation and elaboration of the principles and practice statements as well as some examples to illustrate these. The principles are (1) the policy and research question - the model comparison should address a relevant, clearly defined policy question; (2) model identification and selection - the identification and selection of models for inclusion in the model comparison should be transparent and minimise selection bias; (3) harmonisation - standardisation of input data and outputs should be determined by the research question and value of the effort needed for this step; (4) exploring variability - between- and within-model variability and uncertainty should be explored; (5) presenting and pooling results - results should be presented in an appropriate way to support decision-making; and (6) interpretation - results should be interpreted to inform the policy question.

conclusionThese guidelines should help researchers plan, conduct and report model comparisons of infectious diseases and related interventions in a systematic and structured manner for the purpose of supporting health policy decisions. Adherence to these guidelines will contribute to greater consistency and objectivity in the approach and methods used in multi-model comparisons, and as such improve the quality of modelled evidence for policy.

Indexed as

Health PolicyModels, TheoreticalCommunicable DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingHumansCost-effectivenessDecision-makingHarmonisationImpact modellingInfectious diseasesInterventionsMathematical modellingModel comparisonsPolicy

Identifiers

PMID31422772
PMCPMC6699075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.