Modeling good research practices-overview: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 32, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 667-677

  Caro, J Jaime ^a,b   Briggs, Andrew H ^c   Siebert, Uwe ^d,e   Kuntz, Karen M ^f  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (Austria)

^e HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

good practice; guidelines; methods; modeling

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; REVIEW; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNCERTAINTY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84868087597     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12454577     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 678-689
2. Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 690-700
3. Karnon J, Stahl J, Alan B, Caro JJ, Mar J, Möller J. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-4. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 701-711
4. Pitman R, Fisman D, Zaric GS, et al. Dynamic transmission modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-5. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 712-721
5. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EAL, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 722-732
6. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32 (5). 733-743
7. Petrou S, Grey A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011 ; 342: 1766-72
8. CaroJJFoxJSchaecherKLWatkinsJGardnerHH. Is health outcomes research valuable to real decision makers: a candid discussion with medical and pharmacy directors. Accessed from http://www.ispor.org/meetings/atlanta0510/ releasedpresentations.asp.
9. Buxton M, Drummond M, Van Hout B, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997 ; 6: 217-27
10. SteeleMJ. Dimensions of credibility in models and simulations. Available from: http://aegistg.com/Technical-Papers/08E-SIW- 076%20Dimensions%20of%20Credibility%20in%20Models%20and%20Simulations%20Present ation-Slides.pdf
11. LorscheidIHeineBOMeyerM. Opening the "black box" of simulations: increased transparency of simulation models and effective results reports through the systematic design of experiments. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1860904
12. KijowskiDJ. Responsible conduct of research with computational models. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/18349
13. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006 ; 24: 355-71
14. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices-Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003 ; 6: 9-17
15. Weinstein MC. Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006 ; 24: 1043-53
16. Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006 ; 15: 1295-310
17. Siebert U. When should decision-analytic modeling be used in the economic evaluation of health care?. Eur J Health Econ. 2003 ; 4: 143-50
18. Caro JJ. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005 ; 23: 323-32
19. Stahl JE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: an overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008 ; 26: 131-48
20. BorshchevAFilippovA. From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: reasons, techniques, tools. Accessed from http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2004/sds-2004/papers/381borsh.pdf.
21. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K Oxford: Oxford University Press ; 2006 :
22. Macal CM, North MJ. Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. J Simul. 2010 ; 4: 151-62
23. Jacobson SH, Hall SN, Swisher JR Patient Flow: Reducing Delay in Healthcare Delivery. Hall RW, ed. New York: Springer ; 2006: 211-52.
24. Law AM, Kelton WD 4 th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007. New York: McGraw-Hill ; 2007 :
25. Hunink MGM, Glasziou P, Siegel JE, et al Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ; 2001 :
26. Price M, Welton NJ, Briggs AH, Ades AE. Model averaging in the presence of structural uncertainty about treatment effects: influence on treatment decision and expected value of information. Value Health. 2011 ; 14: 205-18
27. Bilcke J, Beutels P, Brisson M, Jit M. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 2011 ; 31: 675-92