A scoping review of metamodeling applications and opportunities for advanced health economic analyses

References

• Annemans L, Redekop K, Payne K. Current methodological issues in the economic assessment of personalized medicine. Value Health. 2013;16(6 Suppl):S20–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller JD, Foley KA, Russell MW. Current challenges in health economic modeling of cancer therapies: a research inquiry. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2014;7(3):153–162.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips KA, Liang S-Y, Van Bebber S, et al. Challenges to the translation of genomic information into clinical practice and health policy: utilization, preferences, and economic value. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2008;10(3):260–266.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siebert U, Alagoz O, Bayoumi AM, et al. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-3. Value Health. 2012;15(6):812–820.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karnon J, Stahl J, Brennan A, et al. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-4. Value Health. 2012;15(6):821–827.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R. A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ. 2006;15(12):1295–1310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karnon J, Haji Ali Afzali H. When to use discrete event simulation (DES) for the economic evaluation of health technologies? A review and critique of the costs and benefits of DES. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(6):547–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath A, Manolopoulou I, Baio G. A review of methods for analysis of the expected value of information. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37(7):747–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madan J, Ades AE, Price M, et al. Strategies for efficient computation of the expected value of partial perfect information. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34(3):327–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, et al. Design and analysis of computer experiments. Statist Sci. 1989;4(4):409–423.
   Google Scholar
• Law AM. Simulation modeling and analysis. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Li H, Gu J, Wang M, et al. Multi-objective optimization of coronary stent using kriging surrogate model. Biomed Eng Online. 2016;15(2):148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu G, Liang X, Yao S, et al. Multi-objective aerodynamic optimization of the streamlined shape of high-speed trains based on the kriging model. PloS one. 2017;12(1):e0170803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butcher JB, Zi T, Schmidt M, et al. Estimating future temperature maxima in lakes across the United States using a surrogate modeling approach. PloS one. 2017;12(11):e0183499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouyang Q, Lu W, Lin J, et al. Conservative strategy-based ensemble surrogate model for optimal groundwater remediation design at DNAPLs-contaminated sites. J Contam Hydrol. 2017;203:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton RR. Simulation metamodels. Proceedings of the 30th conference on winter simulation. Washington, D.C., USA: IEEE Computer Society Press;1998 167–176. 293221.
   Google Scholar
• Levy S, Steinberg DM. Computer experiments: a review. Adv Stat Anal. 2010;94(4):311–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson TW, Poplinski JD, Koch PN, et al. Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput. 2001;17(2):129–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degeling K, Koffijberg H, IJzerman MJ. A systematic review and checklist presenting the main challenges for health economic modeling in personalized medicine: towards implementing patient-level models. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;17(1):17–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strings attached: CADTH database search filters [Internet]. Ottawa: CADTH; 2016 [cited 2018 Apr 12]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/strings-attached-cadths-database-search-filters#eco
   Google Scholar
• Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM. Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur J Inf Syst. 2011;22(1):45–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilmer RA, Smith AE, Shuman LJ. An emergency department simulation and a neural network metamodel. J Soc Health Syst. 1997;5(3):63–79.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tappenden P, Chilcott JB, Eggington S, et al. Methods for expected value of information analysis in complex health economic models: developments on the health economics of interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(27):iii,1–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodroffe R, Yao GL, Meads C, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of newer immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation: a systematic review and modelling study. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(21):1–179, iii-iv.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rojnik K, Naversnik K. Gaussian process metamodeling in bayesian value of information analysis: a case of the complex health economic model for breast cancer screening. Value Health. 2008;11(2):240–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalal H, Dowd B, Sainfort F, et al. Linear regression metamodeling as a tool to summarize and present simulation model results. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(7):880–890.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willem L, Stijven S, Vladislavleva E, et al. Active learning to understand infectious disease models and improve policy making. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10(4):e1003563.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrianakis I, Vernon IR, McCreesh N, et al. Bayesian history matching of complex infectious disease models using emulation: a tutorial and a case study on HIV in Uganda. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11(1):e1003968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalal H, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Kuntz KM. Computing expected value of partial sample information from probabilistic sensitivity analysis using linear regression metamodeling. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(5):584–595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angus C, Thomas C, Anderson P, et al. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for heavy drinking in primary health care across Europe. Eur J Public Health. 2017;27(2):345–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jutkowitz E, Alarid-Escudero F, Choi HK, et al. Prioritizing future research on allopurinol and febuxostat for the management of gout: value of information analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(10):1073–1085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yousefi M, Yousefi M, Ferreira RPM, et al. Chaotic genetic algorithm and adaboost ensemble metamodeling approach for optimum resource planning in emergency departments. Artif Intell Med. 2018;84:23–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merz JF, Small MJ, Fischbeck PS. Measuring decision sensitivity: a combined monte carlo-logistic regression approach. Med Decis Mak. 1992;12(3):189–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson MD, Oakley J, Chilcott JB. Gaussian process modeling in conjunction with individual patient simulation modeling: a case study describing the calculation of cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment of established osteoporosis. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24(1):89–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalal H, Alarid-Escudero F. A gaussian approximation approach for value of information analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2018;38(2):174–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steuten L, van de Wetering G, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K, et al. Critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information in academia and practice. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(1):25–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleijnen JPC. An overview of the design and analysis of simulation experiments for sensitivity analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2005;164(2):287–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, et al. Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. West Sussex: Wiley; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Cozad A, Sahinidis NV, Miller DC. Learning surrogate models for simulation‐based optimization. AIChE J. 2014;60(6):2211–2227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleijnen JPC, Sargent RG. A methodology for fitting and validating metamodels in simulation. Eur J Oper Res. 2000;120(1):14–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li YF, Ng SH, Xie M, et al. A systematic comparison of metamodeling techniques for simulation optimization in decision support systems. Appl Soft Comput. 2010;10(4):1257–1273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crown W, Buyukkaramikli N, Thokala P, et al. Constrained optimization methods in health services research - an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR optimization methods emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2017;20(3):310–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar