Current practices of model validation in economic evaluation: A systematic review in neoplasms

Pingping Li, Min Zhao, Xiangyu Liu, Hualing Yan, Zeying Yang, Chen Jiang, Yihe Tian, Hongchao Li
{"title":"Current practices of model validation in economic evaluation: A systematic review in neoplasms","authors":"Pingping Li, Min Zhao, Xiangyu Liu, Hualing Yan, Zeying Yang, Chen Jiang, Yihe Tian, Hongchao Li","doi":"10.54844/hd.2024.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Model validation is crucial for ensuring confidence in economic models, and guidelines emphasize the need for \nresearchers to validate the pharmacoeconomic models they construct. This systematic review summarizes current practices \nand challenges in model validation for neoplasm economic evaluations, providing recommendations for improvement. \nMethods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we \nsearched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and ScienceDirect for model-based economic evaluations published between 2021 \nand 2023. The studies were screened and extracted by two researchers independently. The frequency of each model validation \ntype was assessed, along with descriptions of specific practices, validation outcomes, and adjustments made based on the \nvalidation results. \nResults: Among the final 362 articles, 139 (38%) conducted model validation. External validation was the most commonly used \nvalidation method (47%), calibrating the model and comparing simulated outcomes with real-world evidence. Face validation \n(45%) relied on insights from clinical experts and economists. Internal validation (19%) employed tools such as the incremental \nmixture importance sampling (IMIS) algorithm and TreeAge. Cross validation (9%) compared data from similar events, while \npredictive validation (4%) used long-term follow-up data. Of the 39 studies (28%) that reported validation results, none of them \nmade any adjustments based on the validation outcomes. The Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision \nmodels (AdViSHE), a validation-assessment tool, was utilized in three studies for model validation. Additionally, 10% of economic \nevaluations lacked clear validity, while 96% had one to three validity dimensions, and only 4% had four to five dimensions. \nConclusion: Most studies had limited and brief model validation practices without comprehensive descriptions. Researchers \nare encouraged to employ multiple validation methods and provide detailed descriptions of their validation practices, results, \nand adjustments. Active development and utilization of model evaluation tools should be promoted among scholars. \nKey words: model validation, economic evaluation, current practices, systematic review","PeriodicalId":430023,"journal":{"name":"Health Decision","volume":"89 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Decision","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54844/hd.2024.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Model validation is crucial for ensuring confidence in economic models, and guidelines emphasize the need for researchers to validate the pharmacoeconomic models they construct. This systematic review summarizes current practices and challenges in model validation for neoplasm economic evaluations, providing recommendations for improvement. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and ScienceDirect for model-based economic evaluations published between 2021 and 2023. The studies were screened and extracted by two researchers independently. The frequency of each model validation type was assessed, along with descriptions of specific practices, validation outcomes, and adjustments made based on the validation results. Results: Among the final 362 articles, 139 (38%) conducted model validation. External validation was the most commonly used validation method (47%), calibrating the model and comparing simulated outcomes with real-world evidence. Face validation (45%) relied on insights from clinical experts and economists. Internal validation (19%) employed tools such as the incremental mixture importance sampling (IMIS) algorithm and TreeAge. Cross validation (9%) compared data from similar events, while predictive validation (4%) used long-term follow-up data. Of the 39 studies (28%) that reported validation results, none of them made any adjustments based on the validation outcomes. The Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models (AdViSHE), a validation-assessment tool, was utilized in three studies for model validation. Additionally, 10% of economic evaluations lacked clear validity, while 96% had one to three validity dimensions, and only 4% had four to five dimensions. Conclusion: Most studies had limited and brief model validation practices without comprehensive descriptions. Researchers are encouraged to employ multiple validation methods and provide detailed descriptions of their validation practices, results, and adjustments. Active development and utilization of model evaluation tools should be promoted among scholars. Key words: model validation, economic evaluation, current practices, systematic review
经济评估中模型验证的现行做法:肿瘤方面的系统回顾
目的:模型验证对于确保经济模型的可信度至关重要,指南强调研究人员需要验证其构建的药物经济模型。本系统综述总结了肿瘤经济评价模型验证的当前实践和挑战,并提出了改进建议。方法:根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA)指南,我们检索了 PubMed、MEDLINE、Embase 和 ScienceDirect 上 2021 年至 2023 年间发表的基于模型的经济评价。这些研究由两名研究人员独立筛选和提取。评估了每种模型验证类型的频率,以及具体做法、验证结果和根据验证结果所做调整的描述。结果:在最终的 362 篇文章中,有 139 篇(38%)进行了模型验证。外部验证是最常用的验证方法(47%),它校准模型并将模拟结果与真实世界的证据进行比较。面对面验证(45%)依赖于临床专家和经济学家的见解。内部验证(19%)采用了增量混合重要度抽样(IMIS)算法和 TreeAge 等工具。交叉验证(9%)比较了类似事件的数据,而预测验证(4%)则使用了长期随访数据。在报告验证结果的 39 项研究(28%)中,没有一项根据验证结果做出任何调整。有三项研究使用了 "健康经济决策模型验证状态评估"(AdViSHE)这一验证评估工具进行模型验证。此外,10% 的经济评价缺乏明确的有效性,而 96% 的经济评价具有一到三个有效性维度,只有 4% 的经济评价具有四到五个维度。结论:大多数研究的模型验证方法有限且简短,没有全面的描述。我们鼓励研究人员采用多种验证方法,并对其验证方法、结果和调整进行详细说明。学者们应积极开发和利用模型评估工具。关键词:模型验证、经济评价、当前实践、系统综述
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信