SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2025
Under-reporting of Validation Efforts for Health Economic Models Persists Despite the Availability of Validation Tools: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Reporting of Validation Efforts for Cancer Health Economic Decision Models.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- External Validation of the MicroSimulation Core Obesity Model (MS-COM) to Predict Cardiovascular Outcomes, Mortality and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Incidence and Assess Cost Effectiveness.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study we aimed to identify possible changes over time in validation efforts and the way in which they are reported for model-based health economic (HE) evaluations, given the introduction of several new validation tools and methods in the past decade.
methodsA systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Embase on published HE models for early breast cancer (EBC) for the period 2016 to 2024. AdViSHE-consisting of four validation categories that cover the main HE model aspects-was utilized to systematically evaluate the reported evaluation efforts. The percentage of studies reporting validation per category was compared with the review by de Boer et al. that covers the years 2008 to 2015.
resultsOf the 2199 records, 78 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Reported validation efforts did not significantly improve compared with the previous period, except for the validation of input data by experts. Reporting on the validation of the conceptual model remained low with around 10% of the studies providing validation. Validation of the computerized model and validation against outcomes using alternative input data were the most underreported validation categories with < 4% of the studies. The validation of model outcomes, specifically cross validity and the comparison with empirical data, remained the most reported categories in this review also, with 52% and 36%, respectively. When validation efforts were reported, this was done in a non-systematic manner, and the tests and results were rarely detailed.
conclusionOverall reporting of validation efforts for model-based HE evaluations in the past decade did not significantly change compared with the previous decade.
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.