IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v40y2022i10d10.1007_s40273-022-01173-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of the Content and Consistency of Methodological Quality and Transferability Checklists for Reviewing Model-Based Economic Evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Ka Keat Lim

    (King’s College London
    Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London)

  • Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova

    (University of Oxford)

  • Julia Fox-Rushby

    (King’s College London
    Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London)

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine whether and how the content of six checklists (Caro, Consensus on Health Economic Criteria [CHEC]-Extended, European Network of Health Economic Databases [EURONHEED], National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], Philips, Welte) affect the consistency in findings on methodological quality and transferability, using 10 model-based economic evaluations of genetic-guided pharmacotherapy for venous thromboembolism. Methods Each checklist was categorised by domain (structure, data, consistency, etc.) and type of assessment (presence vs. appropriateness) and was applied to each study by two independent reviewers who agreed on ratings via consensus, and discussion with a third reviewer when necessary. Methodological quality scores and rankings were examined using Spearman correlation tests, with subgroup analyses for domains and types of assessment. We compared overall ratings of transferability qualitatively, including how content may affect what is considered ‘transferable’. Results The checklists had similar proportions of items judging presence and appropriateness, but varying proportions of items across domains. For methodological quality, ranking consistencies were the highest between CHEC-Extended-Philips, Philips-NICE and NICE-Caro, with similar consistencies for domains and type of assessment. For transferability, NICE and Caro identified the same study, which scored high on EURONHEED, as transferable to the UK, while Welte, which considered methodological quality, identified none as transferable. Conclusions We found that the choice of checklist can affect findings on study quality and decisions about whether study results are transferable, indicating that different checklists may shortlist different sets of studies in formulating policy recommendations, leading to different policy decisions. Our systematic approach for evaluating the content of methodological quality and transferability checklists of economic evaluations can be extended to other checklists.

Suggested Citation

  • Ka Keat Lim & Rositsa Koleva-Kolarova & Julia Fox-Rushby, 2022. "A Comparison of the Content and Consistency of Methodological Quality and Transferability Checklists for Reviewing Model-Based Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(10), pages 989-1003, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01173-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01173-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01173-3
    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/s40273-022-01173-3?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. N. J. Cooper & A. J. Sutton & A. E. Ades & S. Paisley & D. R. Jones & on behalf of the working group on the ‘use of evidence in economic decision models’, 2007. "Use of evidence in economic decision models: practical issues and methodological challenges," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1277-1286, December.
    2. N. J. Cooper & A. J. Sutton & A. E. Ades & S. Paisley & D. R. Jones, 2007. "Use of evidence in economic decision models: practical issues and methodological challenges," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1277-1286.
    3. Mark H. Eckman & Sushil K. Singh & John K. Erban & Grace Kao, 2002. "Testing for Factor V Leiden in Patients with Pulmonary or Venous Thromboembolism: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(2), pages 108-124, April.
    4. Alan Brennan & Stephen E. Chick & Ruth Davies, 2006. "A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1295-1310, December.
    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. Simon French, 2012. "Expert Judgment, Meta-analysis, and Participatory Risk Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 119-127, June.
    2. Zhi Qu & Shanshan Zhang & Christian Krauth & Xuenan Liu, 2019. "A systematic review of decision analytic modeling techniques for the economic evaluation of dental caries interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Rob Anderson, 2010. "Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 350-364, March.
    4. Gordon Hazen, 2004. "Multiattribute Structure for QALYs," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 205-216, December.
    5. Heß, Michael (Ed.) & Schlieter, Hannes (Ed.), 2014. "Modellierung im Gesundheitswesen: Tagungsband des Workshops im Rahmen der Modellierung 2014," ICB Research Reports 57, University Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems (ICB).
    6. Anirban Basu & William Dale & Arthur Elstein & David Meltzer, 2009. "A linear index for predicting joint health‐states utilities from single health‐states utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 403-419, April.
    7. William Wong & Josh Carlson & Rahber Thariani & David Veenstra, 2010. "Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(11), pages 1001-1013, November.
    8. Ortiz-Barrios, Miguel & Arias-Fonseca, Sebastián & Ishizaka, Alessio & Barbati, Maria & Avendaño-Collante, Betty & Navarro-Jiménez, Eduardo, 2023. "Artificial intelligence and discrete-event simulation for capacity management of intensive care units during the Covid-19 pandemic: A case study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    9. Bernhard Ultsch & Oliver Damm & Philippe Beutels & Joke Bilcke & Bernd Brüggenjürgen & Andreas Gerber-Grote & Wolfgang Greiner & Germaine Hanquet & Raymond Hutubessy & Mark Jit & Mirjam Knol & Rüdiger, 2016. "Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 227-244, March.
    10. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    11. Becky Pennington & Alex Filby & Lesley Owen & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "Smoking Cessation: A Comparison of Two Model Structures," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(9), pages 1101-1112, September.
    12. Gemma E. Shields & Mark Wilberforce & Paul Clarkson & Tracey Farragher & Arpana Verma & Linda M. Davies, 2022. "Factors Limiting Subgroup Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and a Call for Transparency," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 149-156, February.
    13. Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Richard F. MacLehose & Yadira Peralta & Karen M. Kuntz & Eva A. Enns, 2018. "Nonidentifiability in Model Calibration and Implications for Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 810-821, October.
    14. Koen Degeling & Maarten J. IJzerman & Mariel S. Lavieri & Mark Strong & Hendrik Koffijberg, 2020. "Introduction to Metamodeling for Reducing Computational Burden of Advanced Analyses with Health Economic Models: A Structured Overview of Metamodeling Methods in a 6-Step Application Process," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 348-363, April.
    15. Peter J. Dodd & Jeff J. Pennington & Liza Bronner Murrison & David W. Dowdy, 2018. "Simple Inclusion of Complex Diagnostic Algorithms in Infectious Disease Models for Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(8), pages 930-941, November.
    16. Jonathan Karnon & James Stahl & Alan Brennan & J. Jaime Caro & Javier Mar & Jörgen Möller, 2012. "Modeling Using Discrete Event Simulation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 701-711, September.
    17. Annika Hoyer & Sophie Kaufmann & Ralph Brinks, 2019. "Risk factors in the illness-death model: Simulation study and the partial differential equation about incidence and prevalence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-10, December.
    18. Olivier Ethgen & Baudouin Standaert, 2012. "Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 171-181, March.
    19. Stuart J. Wright & William G. Newman & Katherine Payne, 2019. "Accounting for Capacity Constraints in Economic Evaluations of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(8), pages 1011-1027, August.
    20. Arielle Anderer & Hamsa Bastani & John Silberholz, 2022. "Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs with Surrogates: When Should We Bother?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1982-2002, 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:40:y:2022:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01173-3. 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.