Populating decision-analytic models: The feasibility and efficiency of database searching for individual parameters

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 305-311

  Golder, Su ^a   Glanville, Julie ^a   Ginnelly, Laura ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Databases; Decision support techniques; Information storage and retrieval

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SURVEYS;

DECISION-ANALYTIC MODELS; MODEL PARAMETERS; MODEL QUESTIONS; SEARCHING EFFECTIVENESS;

DATABASE SYSTEMS;

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; NITROFURANTOIN; TRIMETHOPRIM;

ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS; ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE; CHILD; CHILD HEALTH CARE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EMBASE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDLINE; MODEL; PYELONEPHRITIS; RECURRENT INFECTION; REVIEW; URINARY TRACT INFECTION;

EID: 23244435250     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462305050403     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Akehurst R, Anderson P, Brazier J, et al. Decision analytic modelling in the economic evaluation of health technologies-A consensus statement. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:443-444.
2. Brettle AJ, Long AF, Grant MJ, et al. Searching for information on outcomes: Do you need to be comprehensive? Qual Health Care. 1998;7:163-167.
3. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). How are studies identified for inclusion in NHS EED? Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/nfaq2. htm. Accessed 26 October 2004.
4. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Information resources in health economics. Available at: http://www.york. ac.uk/inst/crd/econ.htm. Accessed 18 August 2004.
5. Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS health technology assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:31.
6. The Cochrane Collaboration. Reviewer's handbook online version 4.2.2. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/ handbook/index.htm. Accessed 18 August 2004.
7. Coyle D, Lee K. Evidence-based economic evaluation: How the use of different data sources can impact results. In: Donaldson C, Mugford M, Vale L, eds. Evidence-based health economics. London: BMJ Books; 2002: 55-66.
8. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Systematic reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:1286-1291.
9. Eddy D. Technology assessment: The role of mathematical modelling. In: Mosteller F, ed. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1985: 144-160.
10. Halpern MT, McKenna M, Hutton J. Modeling in economic evaluation: An unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1998;7:741-742.
11. Halpern MT, Luce BR, Brown RE, et al. Health and economic outcomes modeling practices: A suggested framework. Value Health. 1998;1:131-147.
12. Hay J, Jackson J. Panel 2: Methodological issues in conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations - modeling studies. Value Health. 1999;2:78-81.
13. ISPOR Task Force. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health care evaluation. Value Health. 2003;6:9-17.
14. McCabe C, Dixon S. Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:501-513.
15. Mugford M. Using systematic reviews for economic evaluation. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman D, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: Meta analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001: 419-428.
16. Napper M, Varney J. Health economics information. In: Etext on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Information Resources. Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/ehta/ chapter11.html. Accessed 18 August 2004.
17. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Improving access to cost-effectiveness information for health care decision-making: The NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Report Number 6. 2nd ed. York: NHS CRD; 2001.
18. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. Report Number 4. 2nd ed. York: NHS CRD; 2001.
19. Nuijten MJ. The selection of data sources for use in modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:305-316.
20. Office of Health Economics (OHE). Health economic evaluations database: About HEED. Available at: http://www.ohe-heed.com/about.htm. Accessed 26 October 2004.
21. Paisley S. Rapid reviews: Less than, greater than or equal to systematic reviews. Presented at NICE Information Specialists' meeting: Methodologies for technology assessment reports. London: NICE; 2002.
22. Paisley S, Booth A, Mensinkai S. Health-related quality of life studies. In: Etext on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Information Resources. Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ nichsr/ehta/chapter12.html. Accessed 18 August 2004.
23. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. A review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:36.
24. Ramsey SD, Sullivan SD. Weighing the economic evidence: Guidelines for critical assessment of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1999;12:477-485.
25. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:461-477.
26. Sonnenberg FA, Roberts MS, Tsevat J, et al Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Med Care. 1994;32:S52-S64.
27. Soto J, Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling. Principles and practices-utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:94-111.
28. Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, et al. Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: Uses, roles, and validity. Value Health. 2001;4:348-361.
29. White VJ, Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, et al. A statistical approach to designing search filters to find systematic reviews: Objectivity enhances accuracy. J Inform Sci. 2001;27:357-370.