Under-reporting of Validation Efforts for Health Economic Models Persists Despite the Availability of Validation Tools: A Systematic Review.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
PharmacoEconomics Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-28 DOI:10.1007/s40273-025-01491-2
Katharina Abraham, Isaac Corro Ramos, C Louwrens Braal, Talitha Feenstra, Anne Kleijburg, George A K van Voorn, Carin Uyl-de Groot
{"title":"Under-reporting of Validation Efforts for Health Economic Models Persists Despite the Availability of Validation Tools: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Katharina Abraham, Isaac Corro Ramos, C Louwrens Braal, Talitha Feenstra, Anne Kleijburg, George A K van Voorn, Carin Uyl-de Groot","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01491-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In this study we aimed to identify possible changes over time in validation efforts and the way in which they are reported for model-based health economic (HE) evaluations, given the introduction of several new validation tools and methods in the past decade.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Embase on published HE models for early breast cancer (EBC) for the period 2016 to 2024. AdViSHE-consisting of four validation categories that cover the main HE model aspects-was utilized to systematically evaluate the reported evaluation efforts. The percentage of studies reporting validation per category was compared with the review by de Boer et al. that covers the years 2008 to 2015.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2199 records, 78 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Reported validation efforts did not significantly improve compared with the previous period, except for the validation of input data by experts. Reporting on the validation of the conceptual model remained low with around 10% of the studies providing validation. Validation of the computerized model and validation against outcomes using alternative input data were the most underreported validation categories with < 4% of the studies. The validation of model outcomes, specifically cross validity and the comparison with empirical data, remained the most reported categories in this review also, with 52% and 36%, respectively. When validation efforts were reported, this was done in a non-systematic manner, and the tests and results were rarely detailed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall reporting of validation efforts for model-based HE evaluations in the past decade did not significantly change compared with the previous decade.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"849-858"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12255658/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-025-01491-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: In this study we aimed to identify possible changes over time in validation efforts and the way in which they are reported for model-based health economic (HE) evaluations, given the introduction of several new validation tools and methods in the past decade.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed and Embase on published HE models for early breast cancer (EBC) for the period 2016 to 2024. AdViSHE-consisting of four validation categories that cover the main HE model aspects-was utilized to systematically evaluate the reported evaluation efforts. The percentage of studies reporting validation per category was compared with the review by de Boer et al. that covers the years 2008 to 2015.

Results: Of the 2199 records, 78 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Reported validation efforts did not significantly improve compared with the previous period, except for the validation of input data by experts. Reporting on the validation of the conceptual model remained low with around 10% of the studies providing validation. Validation of the computerized model and validation against outcomes using alternative input data were the most underreported validation categories with < 4% of the studies. The validation of model outcomes, specifically cross validity and the comparison with empirical data, remained the most reported categories in this review also, with 52% and 36%, respectively. When validation efforts were reported, this was done in a non-systematic manner, and the tests and results were rarely detailed.

Conclusion: Overall reporting of validation efforts for model-based HE evaluations in the past decade did not significantly change compared with the previous decade.

尽管有验证工具,但对卫生经济模型验证工作的低报告仍然存在:一项系统回顾。
目的:在本研究中,我们旨在确定验证工作随着时间的推移可能发生的变化,以及在过去十年中引入了几种新的验证工具和方法的情况下,基于模型的健康经济(HE)评估的报告方式。方法:利用PubMed和Embase对2016 - 2024年已发表的早期乳腺癌HE模型进行系统评价。advishe由四个验证类别组成,涵盖了HE模型的主要方面,用于系统地评估报告的评估工作。将每个类别报告验证的研究的百分比与de Boer等人2008年至2015年的综述进行比较。结果:在2199项记录中,78项研究符合入选标准。除了专家对输入数据的验证外,报告的验证工作与前一期相比没有显着改善。关于概念模型验证的报告仍然很低,只有大约10%的研究提供了验证。计算机模型的验证和使用替代输入数据对结果的验证是最被低估的验证类别。结论:与前十年相比,过去十年中基于模型的HE评估的验证工作的总体报告没有显着变化。
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
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信