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. Rob Anderson, 2010. "Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: utility or futility?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 350-364, March.
    2. Simon French, 2012. "Expert Judgment, Meta-analysis, and Participatory Risk Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 119-127, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Eren Demir & David Southern, 2017. "Enabling better management of patients: discrete event simulation combined with the STAR approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(5), pages 577-590, May.
    11. Jen Kruger & Daniel Pollard & Hasan Basarir & Praveen Thokala & Debbie Cooke & Marie Clark & Rod Bond & Simon Heller & Alan Brennan, 2015. "Incorporating Psychological Predictors of Treatment Response into Health Economic Simulation Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(7), pages 872-887, October.
    12. Sarah Bates & Thomas Bayley & Paul Norman & Penny Breeze & Alan Brennan, 2020. "A Systematic Review of Methods to Predict Weight Trajectories in Health Economic Models of Behavioral Weight-Management Programs: The Potential Role of Psychosocial Factors," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(1), pages 90-105, January.
    13. F. Tomini & F. Prinzen & A. D. I. Asselt, 2016. "A review of economic evaluation models for cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with heart failure," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(9), pages 1159-1172, December.
    14. Luis Hernandez & Asli Ozen & Rodrigo DosSantos & Denis Getsios, 2016. "Systematic Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(7), pages 681-707, July.
    15. Sarang Deo & Sameer Mehta & Charles J. Corbett, 2022. "Optimal Scale‐Up of HIV Treatment Programs in Resource‐Limited Settings Under Supply Uncertainty," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(3), pages 883-905, March.
    16. Matthew J. Glover & Edmund Jones & Katya L. Masconi & Michael J. Sweeting & Simon G. Thompson, 2018. "Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 439-451, May.
    17. Caroline Canavan & Joe West & Timothy Card, 2016. "Calculating Total Health Service Utilisation and Costs from Routinely Collected Electronic Health Records Using the Example of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome Before and After Their First Gastr," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 181-194, February.
    18. Caroline Canavan & Joe West & Timothy Card, 2016. "Calculating Total Health Service Utilisation and Costs from Routinely Collected Electronic Health Records Using the Example of Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome Before and After Their First Gastr," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 181-194, February.
    19. Katherine Payne, 2009. "Fish and chips all round? Regulation of DNA‐based genetic diagnostics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1233-1236, November.
    20. L. B. Standfield & T. A. Comans & P. A. Scuffham, 2017. "An empirical comparison of Markov cohort modeling and discrete event simulation in a capacity-constrained health care setting," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(1), pages 33-47, January.

    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.