IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v37y2019i11d10.1007_s40273-019-00836-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can You Repeat That? Exploring the Definition of a Successful Model Replication in Health Economics

Author

Listed:
  • Emma McManus

    (University of East Anglia)

  • David Turner

    (University of East Anglia)

  • Tracey Sach

    (University of East Anglia)

Abstract

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) modelling taskforce suggests decision models should be thoroughly reported and transparent. However, the level of transparency and indeed how transparency should be assessed are yet to be defined. One way may be to attempt to replicate the model and its outputs. The ability to replicate a decision model could demonstrate adequate reporting transparency. This review aims to explore published definitions of replication success across all scientific disciplines and to consider how such a definition should be tailored for use in health economic models. A literature review was conducted to identify published definitions of a ‘successful replication’. Using these as a foundation, several definitions of replication success were constructed, to be applicable to replications of economic decision models, with the associated strengths and weaknesses of such definitions discussed. A substantial body of literature discussing replicability was found; however, relatively few studies, ten, explicitly defined a successful replication. These definitions varied from subjective assessments to expecting exactly the same results to be reproduced. Whilst the definitions that have been found may help to construct a definition specific to health economics, no definition was found that completely encompassed the unique requirements for decision models. Replication is widely discussed in other scientific disciplines; however, as of yet, there is no consensus on how replicable models should be within health economics or what constitutes a successful replication. Replication studies can demonstrate how transparently a model is reported, identify potential calculation errors and inform future reporting practices. It may therefore be a useful adjunct to other transparency or quality measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma McManus & David Turner & Tracey Sach, 2019. "Can You Repeat That? Exploring the Definition of a Successful Model Replication in Health Economics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(11), pages 1371-1381, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00836-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00836-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-019-00836-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-019-00836-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan H. Höffler, 2017. "Replication and Economics Journal Policies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 52-55, May.
    2. Christopher James Sampson & Tim Wrightson, 2017. "Model Registration: A Call to Action," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 73-77, June.
    3. Maren Duvendack & Richard Palmer-Jones & W. Robert Reed, 2017. "What Is Meant by "Replication" and Why Does It Encounter Resistance in Economics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 46-51, May.
    4. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    5. repec:ejw:journl:v:12:y:2015:i:2:p:164-191 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Annette N. Brown & Drew B. Cameron & Benjamin D. K. Wood, 2014. "Quality evidence for policymaking: I'll believe it when I see the replication," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 215-235, September.
    7. Chang, Andrew C., 2017. "A replication recipe: List your ingredients before you start cooking," Economics Discussion Papers 2017-74, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul Tappenden & J. Jaime Caro, 2019. "Improving Transparency in Decision Models: Current Issues and Potential Solutions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(11), pages 1303-1304, November.

    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. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    2. Valérie Orozco & Christophe Bontemps & Élise Maigné & Virginie Piguet & Annie Hofstetter & Anne Marie Lacroix & Fabrice Levert & Jean-Marc Rousselle, 2017. "How to make a pie? Reproducible Research for Empirical Economics & Econometrics," Post-Print hal-01939942, HAL.
    3. Josephson, Anna & Michler, Jeffrey D., 2018. "Viewpoint: Beasts of the field? Ethics in agricultural and applied economics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Benjamin D K Wood & Rui Müller & Annette N Brown, 2018. "Push button replication: Is impact evaluation evidence for international development verifiable?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Lucas C. Coffman & Muriel Niederle & Alistair J. Wilson, 2017. "A Proposal to Organize and Promote Replications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 41-45, May.
    6. Jan H. Höffler, 2020. "Making replicability the norm starting with oneself and depersonalizing research debates," Replication Working Papers 2/2020, Institut für Statistik und Ökonometrie, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Replication project.
    7. Daniels, Gerald Eric & Kakar, Venoo, 2018. "Normalized CES supply-side system approach: How to replicate Klump, McAdam, and Willman (2007)," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-11.
    8. Kenneth Button, 2020. "Studying the empirical implications of the liberalization of airport markets," Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, , vol. 21(3), pages 223-243, September.
    9. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    11. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    12. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    13. Chowdhury, Rosen & Cook, Steve & Watson, Duncan, 2023. "Reconsidering the relationship between health and income in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    14. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    15. Phil Armstrong, 2020. "Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference?," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 19964.
    16. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    17. Bédécarrats, Florent & Guérin, Isabelle & Morvant-Roux, Solène & Roubaud, François, 2019. "Estimating microcredit impact with low take-up, contamination and inconsistent data. A replication study of Crépon, Devoto, Duflo, and Parienté (American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2015)," International Journal for Re-Views in Empirical Economics (IREE), ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3, pages 1-22.
    18. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    19. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.

    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:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00836-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.