IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0344385.html

Quality assessment reporting checklists for microsimulation models: A scoping review protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Claire de Oliveira

Abstract

Background: Microsimulation models are computer-based models that can be used to understand how economic agents behave in different situations. These models are used by governments to help them make decisions. However, it is important these models are well built and produce useful information. Reporting checklists can help guide researchers confirm that all the necessary elements are included in a model. There are currently no formal reporting checklists to evaluate the quality of microsimulation models. This protocol aims to describe a scoping review, which will retrieve and synthesise the literature on any existing quality assessment checklists for microsimulation models and/or any literature that provides best practices, guidelines, and/or recommendations around which elements should be included. Methods: We will undertake a scoping review followed the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit, and Web of Science, with an update closer to the time of manuscript submission. In addition, where relevant, we will undertake Google searches and searches on specific journals (e.g., International Journal of Microsimulation) and websites (e.g., https://www.microsimulation.ac.uk/) to complement the database searches. We will extract relevant data on quality dimensions and use a narrative synthesis to describe the recommendations. Discussion: There are no formal checklists to assess the quality of microsimulation models. Moreover, no scoping reviews have been undertaken on this topic. This work will synthesise any existing recommendations regarding the development of robust microsimulation models. A validated quality assessment reporting checklist will be the first of its kind and thus, fill an important gap in the literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire de Oliveira, 2026. "Quality assessment reporting checklists for microsimulation models: A scoping review protocol," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(3), pages 1-6, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0344385
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344385
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0344385
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0344385&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0344385?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holly Sutherland, 2018. "Quality Assessment of Microsimulation Models The Case of EUROMOD," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 11(1), pages 198-223.
    2. P. Vemer & I. Corro Ramos & G. A. K. Voorn & M. J. Al & T. L. Feenstra, 2016. "AdViSHE: A Validation-Assessment Tool of Health-Economic Models for Decision Makers and Model Users," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 349-361, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huimin Zou & Yan Xue & Xianwen Chen & Yunfeng Lai & Dongning Yao & Carolina Oi Lam Ung & Hao Hu, 2023. "Comparative analysis of disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(10), pages 1-35, October.
    2. Prajakta P. Masurkar & Haluk Damgacioglu & Ashish A. Deshmukh & Meghana V. Trivedi, 2023. "Cost Effectiveness of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2− Metastatic Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women in the USA," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 709-718, June.
    3. Mathias Dolls & Clemens Fuest & Andreas Peichl & Christian Wittneben, 2022. "Fiscal Consolidation and Automatic Stabilization: New Results," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 70(3), pages 420-450, September.
    4. Eichhorst, Werner & Bonin, Holger & Krause-Pilatus, Annabelle & Marx, Paul & Dolls, Mathias & Lay, Max, 2023. "Minimum Income Support Systems as Elements of Crisis Resilience in Europe," IZA Research Reports 137, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Mathias Dolls & Max Lay, 2023. "The Role of Income Support Systems as Income Stabilizers in Times of Crisis," EconPol Policy Brief 52, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    6. T I Armina Padmasawitri & Gerardus W Frederix & Bachti Alisjahbana & Olaf Klungel & Anke M Hövels, 2018. "Disparities in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of tuberculosis diagnosis: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Richiardi, Matteo & Collado, Diego & Popova, Daria, 2021. "UKMOD – a new tax-benefit model for the four nations of the UK," Centre for Microsimulation and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series CEMPA7/21, Centre for Microsimulation and Policy Analysis at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    8. Okan Erol, Kazim, 2022. "TURKMOD: developing a tax and benefit microsimulation model for Turkey," Centre for Microsimulation and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series CEMPA1/22, Centre for Microsimulation and Policy Analysis at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    9. Bent Estler & Volker Rudolph & Yana Seleznova & Arim Shukri & Stephanie Stock & Dirk Müller, 2023. "Cost-effectiveness of the MitraClip device in German heart failure patients with secondary mitral regurgitation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 349-358, April.
    10. Wynnona Steyn & Alexius Sithole & Winile Ngobeni & Eva Muwanga-Zake & Helen Barnes & Michael Noble & David McLennan & Gemma Wright & Katrin Gasior, 2021. "Simulating personal income tax in South Africa using administrative data and survey data: A comparison of PITMOD and SAMOD for tax year 2018," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-120, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Penny R. Breeze & Hazel Squires & Kate Ennis & Petra Meier & Kate Hayes & Nik Lomax & Alan Shiell & Frank Kee & Frank de Vocht & Martin O’Flaherty & Nigel Gilbert & Robin Purshouse & Stewart Robinson , 2023. "Guidance on the use of complex systems models for economic evaluations of public health interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(7), pages 1603-1625, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0344385. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.