Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32401223›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2020

Use of Simulation Modeling to Inform Decision Making for Health Care Systems and Policy in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Heather Smith, Peyman Varshoei, Robin Boushey, Craig Kuziemsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Simulation modeling validity and utility in colorectal cancer screening delivery: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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.

Heather SmithTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7736-4641
Peyman VarshoeiTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2189-9348
Robin BousheyDivision of Colorectal Surgery, The Ottawa Hospital, Department of Surgery, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8898-5515
Craig KuziemskyOffice of Research Services, MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3904-5372

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSimulation modeling has frequently been used to assess interventions in complex aspects of health care, such as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, where clinical trials are not feasible. Simulation models provide estimates of outcomes, unintended consequences, and costs of an intervention; thus offering an invaluable decision aid for policy makers and health care leaders. However, the contribution that simulation models have made to policy and health system decisions is unknown.

objectiveThis study aims to assess if simulation modeling has supported evidence-informed decision making in CRC screening.

methodsA preliminary literature search and pilot screening of 100 references were conducted by three independent reviewers to define and refine the inclusion criteria of this systematic review. Using the developed inclusion criteria, a search of the academic and gray literature published between January 1, 2008, and March 1, 2019, will be conducted to identify studies that developed a simulation model focusing on the delivery of CRC screening of average-risk individuals. The three independent reviewers will assess the validation process and the extent to which the study contributed evidence toward informed decision making (both reported and potential). Validation will be assessed based on adherence to the best practice recommendations described by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research-Society for Medical Decision Making (ISPOR-SMDM). Criteria for potential contribution to decision making will be defined as outlined in the internationally recognized Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence to Decision (GRADE EtD) framework. These criteria outline information that the health system and policy decision makers should consider when making an evidence-informed decision including an intervention's resource utilization, cost-effectiveness, impact on health equity, and feasibility. Subgroup analysis of articles based on their GRADE EtD criteria will be conducted to identify methods associated with decision support capacity (ie, participatory, quantitative, or mixed methods).

resultsA database search of the literature yielded 484 references to screen for inclusion in the systematic review. We anticipate that this systematic review will provide an insight into the contribution of simulation modeling methods to informed decision making in CRC screening delivery and discuss methods that may be associated with a stronger impact on decision making. The project was funded in May 2019. Data collection took place from January 2008 to March 2019. Data analysis was completed in November 2019, and are expected to be published in spring 2020.

conclusionsOur findings will help guide researchers and health care leaders to mobilize the potential for simulation modeling to inform evidence-informed decisions in CRC screening delivery. The methods of this study may also be replicated to assess the utility of simulation modeling in other areas of complex health care decision making. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16103.

trial registrationPROSPERO no. 130823; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

Indexed as

colorectal cancer screeningdecision-makingmodel validationsimulation modeling

Identifiers

PMID32401223
PMCPMC7254289

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.