Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Checklist items for reporting modelling studies

From: Reporting guidelines for modelling studies

Dimension of Quality Reporting item Philips Unal ISPOR Nuijten Stout Drummond Kopec
STRUCTURE         
Decision problem/objective Is there a clear statement of the decision problem? x    x   x  
  Is the objective of the evaluation specified and consistent with the stated decision problem? x    x    
  Is the primary decision-maker specified? x      x  
Scope/perspective Is the perspective of the model clearly stated? x   x x    
  Are the model inputs consistent with the stated perspective? x      x  
  Are definitions of the variables in the model justified?        x
  Has the scope of the model been stated and justified? x       x
  Are the outcomes of the model consistent with the perspective, scope and overall objective of the model? x       
Rationale for structure Is the structure of the model consistent with a coherent theory of the health condition under evaluation? x   x     x
  Are the sources of data used to develop the structure of the model specified? x       
  Are the causal relationships described by the model structure justified appropriately? x       
Structural assumptions Are the structural assumptions clearly stated and justified? x x x x    
  Are the structural assumptions reasonable given the overall objective, perspective and scope of the model? x       
Strategies/comparators Is there a clear definition of the options under evaluation? x   x x    
  Have all feasible and practical options been evaluated? x       
  Is there justification for the exclusion of feasible options? x       
Model type Is the chosen model type appropriate given the decision problem and specified causal relationships within the model? x    x    x
Time horizon Is the time horizon of the model sufficient to reflect all important differences between options? x   x x    
  Are the time horizon of the model, the duration of treatment and the duration of treatment effect described and justified? x       
Disease states/pathways Do the disease states (state transition model) or the pathways (decision tree model) reflect the underlying biological process of the disease in question and the impact of the interventions? x   x x    
Cycle length Is the cycle length justified? x   x x    
Parsimony Is there indication that the structure of the model is as simple as possible and that any simplifications are justified?    x     
DATA         
Data identification Are the data identification methods transparent and appropriate given the objectives of the model? x   x x    
  Are results reported in a way that allows the assessment of the appropriateness of each parameter input and each assumption in the target settings?       x  
  Where choices have been made between data sources, are these justified appropriately? x      x x
  Where data from different sources are pooled, is this done in a way that the uncertainty relating to their precision and possible heterogeneity is adequately reflected?       x  
  Are the data used to populate the model relevant to the target audiences (i.e., decision-makers) and settings?       x  
  Has particular attention been paid to identifying data for the important parameters in the model? x       
  Has the quality of the data been assessed appropriately? x x      x
  Where expert opinion has been used, are the methods described and justified? x   x x    x
Data modelling Is the data modelling methodology based on justifiable statistical and epidemiological techniques? x   x     
Baseline data Is the choice of baseline data described and justified? x       
  Are transition probabilities calculated appropriately? x   x x    
Treatment effects If relative treatment effects have been derived from trial data, have they been synthesized using appropriate techniques? x   x     
  Have the methods and assumptions used to extrapolate short-term results to final outcomes been documented and justified? Have alternative assumptions been explored through sensitivity analysis? x   x x    
  Have assumptions regarding the continuing effect of treatment once treatment is complete been documented and justified? Have alternative assumptions been explored through sensitivity analysis? x       
Risk factors Has evidence supporting the modeling of risk factors as having an additive or multiplicative effect on baseline probabilities or rates of disease incidence or mortality been presented?    x     
Data incorporation Have all data incorporated into the model been described and referenced in sufficient detail? x   x x    
  Has the use of mutually inconsistent data been justified (i.e., are assumptions and choices appropriate)? x       
  Is the process of data incorporation transparent? x   x     
  If data have been incorporated as distributions, has the choice of distribution for each parameter been described and justified? x   x     
  If data have been incorporated as distributions, is it clear that second order uncertainty is reflected? x   x     
Assessment of uncertainty Have the four principal types of uncertainty been addressed? x       
  If not, has the omission of particular forms of uncertainty been justified? x       
Methodological Have methodological uncertainties been addressed by running alternative versions of the model with different methodological assumptions? x       
Structural Is there evidence that structural uncertainties have been addressed via sensitivity analysis? x   x     
Heterogeneity Has heterogeneity been dealt with by running the model separately for different subgroups? x   x     
Parameter Are the methods of assessment of parameter uncertainty appropriate? x   x x   x x
  If data are incorporated as point estimates, are the ranges used for sensitivity analysis stated clearly and justified? x x      
  Which sensitivity analyses were carried out?   x      
CONSISTENCY         
Internal consistency Is there evidence that the mathematical logic of the model has been tested thoroughly before use? x   x     x
External consistency Are any counterintuitive results from the model explained and justified? x   x x    
  If the model has been calibrated against independent data, have any differences been explained and justified? x x      
  How was the model calibrated?   x      
  Calibration - description of source data      x   x
  Calibration - description of search algorithm      x   x
  Calibration - description of goodness-of-fit metric      x   x
  Calibration - description of acceptance criteria      x   x
  Calibration - description of stopping rule      x   x
  Have the results of the model been compared with those of previous models and any differences in results explained? x   x x    x
VALIDITY         
Output plausibility Has evidence of face validity - evaluation by experts in the subject matter area for a wide range of input conditions and output variables, over varying time horizons – been presented?        x
Predictive validity Was the validity of the model tested?   x   x x   x
  Is there a description of how the validity of the model was checked?   x    x   
  How was the validity quantified? (e.g., % explained)   x      
COMPUTER IMPLEMENTATION Is the software used in the study listed and its choice justified?   x   x    x
TRANSPARENCY Is the model available to the reader?   x      
  Is a detailed document describing the calibration methods available?      x   
  Do the authors provide relevant appendices?     x    
SPONSORSHIP Is disclosure of relationship between study sponsor and performer of the study provided?     x