Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34993914›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2022

Calibrating Natural History of Cancer Models in the Presence of Data Incompatibility: Problems and Solutions.

Olena Mandrik, Chloe Thomas, Sophie Whyte, James Chilcott

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Calibration and Validation of the Colorectal Cancer and Adenoma Incidence and Mortality (CRC-AIM) Microsimulation Model Using Deep Neural Networks.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Olena MandrikSchool of Health and Related Research, Health Economics and Decision Science, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. o.mandrik@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3755-3031
Chloe ThomasSchool of Health and Related Research, Health Economics and Decision Science, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Sophie WhyteSchool of Health and Related Research, Health Economics and Decision Science, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
James ChilcottSchool of Health and Related Research, Health Economics and Decision Science, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
University of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The calibration of cancer natural history models is often challenged by a lack of representative calibration targets, forcing modellers to rely on potentially incompatible datasets. Using a microsimulation colorectal cancer model as an example, the purposes of this paper are to (1) highlight the reasons for uncertainty in calibration targets, (2) illustrate practical and generalisable approaches for dealing with incompatibility in calibration targets, and (3) discuss the importance of future research in the area of incorporating uncertainty in calibration. The low quality of data and differences in populations, outcome definitions, and healthcare systems may result in incompatibility between the model and the data. Acknowledging reasons for data incompatibility allows assessment of the risk of incompatibility before calibrating the model. Only a few approaches are available to address data incompatibility, for instance addressing biases in calibration targets and their adjustment, relaxing the goodness-of-fit metric, and validation of the calibration targets to the data not used in the calibration. However, these approaches lack explicit comparison and validation, and so more research is needed to describe the nature and causes of indirect uncertainty (i.e. uncertainty that cannot be expressed in absolute quantitative forms) and identify methods for managing this uncertainty in healthcare modelling.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsBiasCalibrationDelivery of Health CareHumansUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID34993914
OpenAlexW4205794844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.