Model performance evaluation (validation and calibration) in model-based studies of therapeutic interventions for cardiovascular diseases: A review and suggested reporting framework

被引:16
作者
Haji Ali Afzali H. [1 ]
Gray J. [1 ]
Karnon J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Discipline of Public Health, School of Population Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005
关键词
Calibration Process; Decision Analytic Model; Calibration Target; Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee; Model Performance Evaluation;
D O I
10.1007/s40258-013-0012-6
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Decision analytic models play an increasingly important role in the economic evaluation of health technologies. Given uncertainties around the assumptions used to develop such models, several guidelines have been published to identify and assess 'best practice' in the model development process, including general modelling approach (e.g., time horizon), model structure, input data and model performance evaluation. This paper focuses on model performance evaluation. In the absence of a sufficient level of detail around model performance evaluation, concerns regarding the accuracy of model outputs, and hence the credibility of such models, are frequently raised. Following presentation of its components, a review of the application and reporting of model performance evaluation is presented. Taking cardiovascular disease as an illustrative example, the review investigates the use of face validity, internal validity, external validity, and cross model validity. As a part of the performance evaluation process, model calibration is also discussed and its use in applied studies investigated. The review found that the application and reporting of model performance evaluation across 81 studies of treatment for cardiovascular disease was variable. Cross-model validation was reported in 55 % of the reviewed studies, though the level of detail provided varied considerably. We found that very few studies documented other types of validity, and only 6 % of the reviewed articles reported a calibration process. Considering the above findings, we propose a comprehensive model performance evaluation framework (checklist), informed by a review of best-practice guidelines. This framework provides a basis for more accurate and consistent documentation of model performance evaluation. This will improve the peer review process and the comparability of modelling studies. Recognising the fundamental role of decision analytic models in informing public funding decisions, the proposed framework should usefully inform guidelines for preparing submissions to reimbursement bodies. © 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
引用
收藏
页码:85 / 93
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Hall P.S., McCabe C., Brown J.M., Et al., Health economics in drug development: Efficient research to inform health care funding decisions, Eur J Cancer Care, 46, pp. 2674-2680, (2010)
  • [2] Karnon J., Brown J., Selecting a decision model for economic evaluation: A case study and review, Health Care Manag Sci, 1, pp. 133-140, (1998)
  • [3] Buxton M.J., Drummond M.F., Van Hout B.A., Et al., Modeling in economic evaluation: An unavoidable fact of life, Health Econ, 6, pp. 217-227, (1997)
  • [4] Karnon J.E., Goyder E., Tappenden P., Et al., A review and critique of modelling in prioritising and designing screening programs, Health Technol Assess, 11, pp. 1-145, (2007)
  • [5] The ISPOR-SMDM Joint Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force
  • [6] Sculpher M., Fenwick E., Claxton K., Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: A suggested framework and example of application, Pharmacoeconomics, 17, pp. 461-477, (2000)
  • [7] Philips Z., Ginnelly L., Sculpher M., Et al., Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment, Health Technol Assess, 8, pp. 1-158, (2004)
  • [8] McCabe C., Dixon S., Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness model, Pharmacoeconomics, 17, pp. 501-513, (2000)
  • [9] Haji Ali Afzali H., Karnon J., Gray J., A critical review of model-based economic studies of depression: Modelling techniques, model structure and data sources, Pharmacoeconomics, 30, pp. 461-482, (2012)
  • [10] Tarride J., Hopkins R., Blackhouse G., Et al., A review of methods used in long-term cost-effectiveness models of diabetes mellitus treatment, Pharmacoeconomics, 28, pp. 255-277, (2010)