ArticlePharmacoEconomics2019
TECH-VER: A Verification Checklist to Reduce Errors in Models and Improve Their Credibility.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 6 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
49 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Reporting of Validation Efforts for Cancer Health Economic Decision Models.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- A Critical Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches and Methodologies used in Hyperlipidaemia Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Developing a Comprehensive Framework for Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Insights from a Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Under-reporting of Validation Efforts for Health Economic Models Persists Despite the Availability of Validation Tools: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel resistance genotype testing after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: a systematic review and economic model.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Automated devices for identifying peripheral arterial disease in people with leg ulceration: an evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole stones: the PUrE RCTs.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Cost Effectiveness of Vericiguat for the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Following a Worsening Heart Failure Event from a US Medicare Perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Trial
- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of adjuvanted influenza vaccine in the older adult population in the Netherlands.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Conceptualising Health Economic Models Using a Graph Retrieval-Augmented, Agentic AI Framework with Human-in-the-Loop Validation: Proof-of-Concept Study.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- An Early Value Assessment of Biomarker-Guided Precision Medicine for Treatment-Resistant Hypertension: A Headroom and Threshold Analysis.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- A Cardiovascular Care Pathway Supported by Remote Patient Management in Dutch Primary Care: Cost-Effectiveness, Budget Impact, and Workload Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Low-Dose Atropine Eye Drops (0.01%) for the Treatment of Myopia in Children: A United Kingdom Perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Projected health benefits and cost offsets from the United States National Hepatitis C Elimination Initiative.Nature communications · 2026Article
- The cost-effectiveness of enzyme replacement therapies versus best supportive care for treating late onset Pompe disease in the UK NHS.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- The Cost Utility of Rhythm Control Treatment Sequences in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Anti-arrhythmic Drugs Versus Catheter Ablation.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the covered endovascular reconstruction of the aortic bifurcation versus kissing stents and open surgical repair for the treatment of aorto-iliac occlusive disease.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccinating infants and adolescents against invasive meningococcal B disease in the Netherlands.BMC medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn health economic literature, checklists or best practice recommendations on model validation/credibility always declare verification of the programmed model as a fundamental step, such as 'is the model implemented correctly and does the implementation accurately represent the conceptual model?' However, to date, little operational guidance for the model verification process has been given. In this study, we aimed to create an operational checklist for model users or reviewers to verify the technical implementation of health economic decision analytical models and document their verification efforts.
methodsLiterature on model validation, verification, programming errors and credibility was reviewed systematically from scientific databases. An initial beta version of the checklist was developed based on the checklists/tests identified from the literature and from authors' previous modeling/appraisal experience. Next, the first draft checklist was presented to a number of health economists on several occasions and was tested on different models (built in different software, developed by different stakeholders, including drug manufacturers, consultancies or academia), each time leading to an update of the checklist and culminating in the final version of the TECHnical VERification (TECH-VER) checklist, introduced in this paper.
resultsThe TECH-VER necessitates a model reviewer (preferably independent), an executable and transparent model, its input sources, and detailed documentation (e.g. technical report/scientific paper) in which the conceptual model, its implementation, programmed model inputs, and results are reported. The TECH-VER checklist consists of five domains: (1) input calculations; (2) event-state (patient flow) calculations; (3) result calculations; (4) uncertainty analysis calculations; and (5) other overall checks (e.g. validity or interface). The first four domains reflect the verification of the components of a typical health economic model. For these domains, as a prerequisite of verification tests, the reviewer should identify the relevant calculations in the electronic model and assess the provided justifications for the methods used in the identified calculations. For this purpose, we recommend completeness/consistency checks. Afterwards, the verification tests can be conducted for the calculations in each of these stages by checking the correctness of the implementation of these calculations. For this purpose, the following type of tests are recommended in consecutive order: (i) black-box tests, i.e. checking if model calculations are in line with a priori expectations; (ii) white-box testing, i.e. going through the program code details line by line, or cell by cell (recommended for some crucial calculations and if there are some unexpected results from the black-box tests); and (iii) model replication/parallel programming (recommended only in certain situations, and if the issues related to the identified unexpected results from black-box tests could not be resolved through white-box testing). To reduce the time burden of model verification, we suggest a hierarchical order in tests i-iii, where going to the next step is necessary when the previous step fails.
conclusionsThe TECH-VER checklist is a comprehensive checklist for the technical verification of decision analytical models, aiming to help identify model implementation errors and their root causes while improving the transparency and efficiency of the verification efforts. In addition to external reviews, we consider that the TECH-VER can be used as an internal training and quality control tool for new health economists, while developing their initial models. It is the authors' aim that the TECH-VER checklist transforms itself to an open-source living document, with possible future versions, or 'bolt-on' extensions for specific applications with additional 'fit-for-purpose' tests, as well as 'tips and tricks' and some demonstrative error examples. For this reason, the TECH-VER checklist and the list of black-box tests created in this paper and a few model verification examples is uploaded to an open access, online platform (github and the website of the institute), where other users will also be able to upload their original verification efforts and tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.