Quality Assessment in Modeling in Decision Analytic Models for Economic Evaluation

Encyclopedia of Health Economics

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 218-223

  Shemilt, I ^a   Wilson, E ^b   Vale, L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b NORWICH RESEARCH PARK   (United Kingdom)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Economic evaluation; Modeling; Quality assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961323612     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-375678-7.01405-X     Document Type: Chapter

References (21)

1. Bojke L., Claxton K., Palmer S., Sculpher M. (2000). Defining and characterising structural uncertainty in decision analytic models. CHE Research Paper 9. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
2. Briggs A., Sculpher M., Claxton K. Chapter 4: Making decision models probabilistic. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation 2006, 77-120. Oxford University Press, Oxford. A. Briggs, M. Sculpher, K. Claxton (Eds.).
3. Briggs A., Weinstein M., Fenwick E., et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-6. Value in Health 2012, 15:835-842.
4. Brunetti M., Shemilt I., Pregno S., et al. GRADE guidelines: 10. Special challenges - quality of evidence for resource use. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013, 66(2):140-150.
5. Guidelines for the evaluation of health technologies 2006, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa. 3rd ed.
6. Cooper N.J., Sutton A.J., Ades A.E., Paisley S., Jones D.R. Use of evidence in economic decision models: Practical issues and methodological challenges. Health Economics 2007, 16(12):1277-1286.
7. Coyle D., Lee K.M., Cooper N.J. Chapter 9: Use of evidence in decision models. Evidence-based decisions and economics: health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice 2010, 106-113. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. I. Shemilt, M. Mugford, L. Vale, K. Marsh, C. Donaldson (Eds.).
8. Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G. and Sterne, J. A. C. (eds.) (2011). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In Higgins, J. P. T. and Green, S. (eds.) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, pp. 188-242. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: (accessed 28.03.13). http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
9. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health care (IQWiG). (2009). Working paper Modelling. Version 1.0. Cologne: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health care.
10. Kaltenthaler E., Tappenden P., Paisley S., Squires H. (2011). NICE DSU Technical Support Document 13: Identifying and reviewing evidence to inform the conceptualisation and population of cost-effectiveness models. Sheffield: NICE Decision Support Unit, School of Health and Related Research. Available at: (accessed 28.03.13). http://www.nicedsu.org.uk.
11. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2008, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London.
12. Paisley S. Classification of evidence used in decision-analytic models of cost-effectiveness: A content analysis of published reports. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2010, 26(4):458-462.
13. Philips Z., Ginnelly L., Sculpher M., et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modeling in health technology assessment. Health Technology Assessment 2004, 8(36):1-172.
14. Deeks J.J., Dinnes J., D'Amico R., et al. Evaluating non-randomized intervention studies. Health Technology Assessment 2003, 7:27.
15. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance 2009, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London. 2nd ed.
16. 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(4):355-371.
17. Campbell and Cochrane Economic Methods Group. http://c-cemg.org/.
18. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
19. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (short GRADE) Working Group. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org.
20. NICE Decision Support Unit. http://www.nicedsu.org.uk.
21. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. http://www.ispor.org.