Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations: the ECOBIAS checklist

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 513-523

  Adarkwah, Charles Christian ^a,b   van Gils, Paul F ^c   Hiligsmann, Mickaël ^a   Evers, Silvia M A A ^a,d  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT   (Netherlands)

^d NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

bias; checklist; cost and outcomes; economic evaluation; model based studies; systematic error

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIAS IN ECONOMIC EVALUATION CHECKLIST; CHECKLIST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; INTERVENTION STUDY; MODEL; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNCERTAINTY; ECONOMIC MODEL; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHECKLIST; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84947798175     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2015.1103185     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. M.van den Berg, H.H.Hamberg-van Reenen, C.G.Schoemaker Cost-effectiveness:euros per QALY is not enough. [Article in Dutch] Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156(5):A3817.
2. M.C.Weinstein, B.O’Brien, J.Hornberger, et al. ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. 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.
3. J.J.Caro, A.H.Briggs, U.Siebert, et al. ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices - overview:a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.012.
4. M.Sculpher, E.Fenwick, K.Claxton. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models:a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:461–477.
5. Z.Philips, L.Ginnelly, M.Sculpher, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1–158.
6. M.T.Halpern, B.R.Luce, R.E.Brown, et al. Health and economic outcomes modeling practices:a suggested framework. Value Health. 1998;1:131–147.
7. K.M.Kuntz, M.C.Weinstein. Modeling in economic evaluation. In:M.F.Drummond, A.McGuire, editors. Economic evaluation in health care:merging theory with practice. New York (NY):Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 141–171.
8. M.F.Drummond, T.O.Jefferson. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313:275–283.
9. S.Evers, M.Goossens, H.de Vet, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations:consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:240–245.
10. C.F.Chiou, J.W.Hay, J.F.Wallace, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41:32–44.
11. M.C.Weinstein, J.E.Siegel, M.R.Gold, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1253–1258.
12. S.Ramsey, R.Willke, A.Briggs, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials:the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health. 2005;8:521–533.
13. J.E.Siegel, G.W.Torrance, L.B.Russell, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;11:159–168.
14. D.Husearau, M.Drummond, S.Petrou, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) – explanation and elaboration:a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16:231–250.
15. J.P.T.Higgins, D.G.Altman, J.A.C.Sterne. Chapter 8:assessing risk of bias in included studies. In:J.P.T.Higgins, S.Green, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from:www.cochrane-handbook.org.
16. M.de Bruin, J.McCambridge, J.M.Prins. Reducing the risk of bias in health behaviour change trials:improving trial design, reporting or bias assessment criteria? A review and case study. Psychol Health. 2015;30(1):8–34. Epub 2014 Oct21. DOI:10.1080/08870446.2014.953531.
17. S.M.Evers, M.Hiligsmann, C.C.Adarkwah. Risk of bias in trial-based economic evaluations:identification of sources and bias-reducing strategies. Psychol Health. 2015;30(1):52–71. Epub 2014 Oct21. DOI:10.1080/08870446.2014.953532.
18. Z.Philips, L.Bojke, M.Sculpher, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:355–371.
19. F.Sassi, L.Archard, D.McDaid. Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations:how systematic can we afford to be? Med Care. 2002;40(5):387–394.
20. V.Alton, I.Eckerlund, A.Norlund. Health economic evaluations:how to find them. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(4):512–517. DOI:10.1017/S0266462306051452.
21. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0; 2011 [cited 2013 Sept12]. Available from:http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
22. A.Langer. A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:253.
23. M.Hoogendoorn, T.L.Feenstra, Y.Asukai, et al. Cost-effectiveness models for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease:cross-model comparison of hypothetical treatment scenarios. Value Health. 2014;17(5):525–536. Epub 2014 May14. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.1721.
24. M.Hiligsmann, S.M.Evers, W.Ben Sedrine, et al. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(3):205–224. DOI:10.1007/s40273-014-0231-1.
25. K.N.Simpson, A.Strassburger, W.J.Jones, et al. Comparison of Markov model and discrete-event simulation techniques for HIV. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(2):159–165. DOI:10.2165/00019053-200927020-00006.
26. J.Karnon, J.Brown. Selecting a decision model for economic evaluation:a case study and review. Health Care Manag Sci, 1998;1(2):133–140.
27. S.M.Vijgen, P.H.Van Baal, R.T.Hoogenveen, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses of health promotion programs:a case study of smoking prevention and cessation among Dutch students. Health Educ Res. 2008;23(2):310–318. Epub 2007 Aug4.
28. J.Soto. 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(1):94–111.
29. S.D.Ramsey. Evaluating evidence from a decision analysis. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1999;12(5):395–402.
30. M.Hiligsmann, A.Boonen, V.Rabenda, et al. The importance of integrating medication adherence into pharmacoeconomic analyses:the example of osteoporosis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12(2):159–166. DOI:10.1586/erp.12.8.
31. A.Sonnenberg, F.Delco, P.Bauerfeind. Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer? Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2268–2274.
32. J.van Bergen, H.M.Gotz, J.H.Richardus, et al. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches:results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect. 2005;81:17–23.
33. I.V.van den Broek, J.E.van Bergen, E.E.Brouwers, et al. Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands:controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation. BMJ. 2012;345:e4316.
34. M.Hiligsmann, V.Rabenda, H.J.Gathon, et al. Potential clinical and economic impact of nonadherence with osteoporosis medications. Calcif Tissue Int. 2010;86(3):202–210.
35. P.H.van Baal, M.van den Berg, R.T.Hoogenveen, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a low-calorie diet and orlistat for obese persons:modeling long-term health gains through prevention of obesity-related chronic diseases. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1033–1040. Epub 2008 May20. DOI:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00328.x.
36. F.Caulin, J.A.Kanis, O.Johnell, et al. Optimal age for preventing osteoporosis after menopause depends on effects of stopping treatment. Bone. 2002;30(5):754–758.
37. M.H.Hatz, R.Leidl, N.A.Yates, et al. A systematic review of the quality of economic models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):377–393. DOI:10.1007/s40273-013-0128-4.
38. M.Unruh, G.Yan, M.Radeva, et al. HEMO Study Group. Bias in assessment of health-related quality of life in a hemodialysis population:a comparison of self-administered and interviewer-administered surveys in the HEMO study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14(8):2132–2141.
39. A.Vaidya, M.A.Joore, A.J.ten Cate-Hoek, et al. A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for lower extremity artery disease. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111(1):19–28. Epub 2013 Oct10. DOI:10.1160/TH13-06-0498. Review.
40. H.G.van Haalen, J.L.Severens, A.Tran-Duy, et al. How to select the right cost-effectiveness model?:a systematic review and stepwise approach for selecting a transferable health economic evaluation model for rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(5):429–442. DOI:10.1007/s40273-014-0139-9.
41. D.M.Eddy, W.Hollingworth, J.J.Caro, et al. ISPOR−SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model transparency and validation:a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Value Health. 2012;15(6):843–850. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.012.
42. P.Vemer, I.Corro Ramos, G.van Voorn, et al. Advishe:a new tool to report validation of health-economic decision models. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A556–A557. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.1831.
43. L.M.Bouter. Commentary:perverse incentives or rotten apples? Account Res. 2015;22(3):148–161. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.950253.
44. A.Brousselle, C.Lessard. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making:promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):832–839. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.008.
45. G.-J.Y.Peters, C.Abraham, R.Crutzen. Full disclosure:doing behavioural science necessitates sharing. Eur Health Psychol. 2012;14:77–84.
46. A.H.Briggs, M.C.Weinstein, E.A.Fenwick, et al. ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty:a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–6. Value Health. 2012;15(6):835–842. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014.
47. J.J.Caro, D.M.Eddy, H.Kan, et al. ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Modeling CER Task Forces. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making:an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–182. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.003.
48. A.K.O’Sullivan, D.Thompson, M.F.Drummond. Collection of health-economic data alongside clinical trials:is there a future for piggyback evaluations? Value Health. 2005;8(1):67–79.