Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations: the ECOBIAS checklist

References

• van den Berg M, Hamberg-van Reenen HH, Schoemaker CG. Cost-effectiveness: euros per QALY is not enough. [Article in Dutch] Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156(5):A3817.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6:9–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, et al. ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices - overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:461–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 2004;8:1–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern MT, Luce BR, Brown RE, et al. Health and economic outcomes modeling practices: a suggested framework. Value Health. 1998;1:131–147.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC. Modeling in economic evaluation. In: Drummond MF, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 141–171.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313:275–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:240–245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41:32–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276:1253–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey S, Willke R, Briggs A, et al. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health. 2005;8:521–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel JE, Torrance GW, Russell LB, et al. Guidelines for pharmacoeconomic studies. Recommendations from the panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Panel on cost effectiveness in health and medicine. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;11:159–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husearau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) – explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16:231–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
   Google Scholar
• de Bruin M, McCambridge J, Prins JM. Reducing the risk of bias in health behaviour change trials: improving trial design, reporting or bias assessment criteria? A review and case study. Psychol Health. 2015;30(1):8–34. Epub 2014 Oct 21. DOI:10.1080/08870446.2014.953531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evers SM, Hiligsmann M, Adarkwah CC. Risk of bias in trial-based economic evaluations: identification of sources and bias-reducing strategies. Psychol Health. 2015;30(1):52–71. Epub 2014 Oct 21. DOI:10.1080/08870446.2014.953532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:355–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sassi F, Archard L, McDaid D. Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations: how systematic can we afford to be? Med Care. 2002;40(5):387–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alton V, Eckerlund I, Norlund A. Health economic evaluations: how to find them. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(4):512–517. DOI:10.1017/S0266462306051452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0; 2011 [cited 2013 Sept 12]. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Langer A. A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogendoorn M, Feenstra TL, Asukai Y, et al. Cost-effectiveness models for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: cross-model comparison of hypothetical treatment scenarios. Value Health. 2014;17(5):525–536. Epub 2014 May 14. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.1721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Evers SM, Ben Sedrine W, et al. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(3):205–224. DOI:10.1007/s40273-014-0231-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson KN, Strassburger A, Jones WJ, et al. Comparison of Markov model and discrete-event simulation techniques for HIV. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(2):159–165. DOI:10.2165/00019053-200927020-00006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karnon J, Brown J. Selecting a decision model for economic evaluation: a case study and review. Health Care Manag Sci, 1998;1(2):133–140.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vijgen SM, Van Baal PH, Hoogenveen RT, et al. Cost-effectiveness analyses of health promotion programs: a case study of smoking prevention and cessation among Dutch students. Health Educ Res. 2008;23(2):310–318. Epub 2007 Aug 4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soto J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling: principles and practices. Utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18(1):94–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey SD. Evaluating evidence from a decision analysis. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1999;12(5):395–402.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Boonen A, Rabenda V, et al. The importance of integrating medication adherence into pharmacoeconomic analyses: the example of osteoporosis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12(2):159–166. DOI:10.1586/erp.12.8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Bauerfeind P. Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer? Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2268–2274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Bergen J, Gotz HM, Richardus JH, et al. Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. Sex Transm Infect. 2005;81:17–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Broek IV, van Bergen JE, Brouwers EE, et al. Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands: controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation. BMJ. 2012;345:e4316.
   Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Rabenda V, Gathon HJ, et al. Potential clinical and economic impact of nonadherence with osteoporosis medications. Calcif Tissue Int. 2010;86(3):202–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Baal PH, van den Berg M, Hoogenveen RT, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a low-calorie diet and orlistat for obese persons: modeling long-term health gains through prevention of obesity-related chronic diseases. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1033–1040. Epub 2008 May 20. DOI:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00328.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caulin F, Kanis JA, Johnell O, et al. Optimal age for preventing osteoporosis after menopause depends on effects of stopping treatment. Bone. 2002;30(5):754–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatz MH, Leidl R, Yates NA, et al. A systematic review of the quality of economic models comparing thrombosis inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):377–393. DOI:10.1007/s40273-013-0128-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unruh M, Yan G, Radeva M, et al. HEMO Study Group. Bias in assessment of health-related quality of life in a hemodialysis population: a comparison of self-administered and interviewer-administered surveys in the HEMO study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14(8):2132–2141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaidya A, Joore MA, ten Cate-Hoek AJ, et al. A systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for lower extremity artery disease. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111(1):19–28. Epub 2013 Oct 10. DOI:10.1160/TH13-06-0498. Review.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Haalen HG, Severens JL, Tran-Duy A, et al. How to select the right cost-effectiveness model?: a systematic review and stepwise approach for selecting a transferable health economic evaluation model for rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(5):429–442. DOI:10.1007/s40273-014-0139-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. ISPOR−SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Value Health. 2012;15(6):843–850. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vemer P, Corro Ramos I, van Voorn G, et al. Advishe: a new tool to report validation of health-economic decision models. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A556–A557. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.1831.
   Google Scholar
• Bouter LM. Commentary: perverse incentives or rotten apples? Account Res. 2015;22(3):148–161. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.950253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brousselle A, Lessard C. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):832–839. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters G-JY, Abraham C, Crutzen R. Full disclosure: doing behavioural science necessitates sharing. Eur Health Psychol. 2012;14:77–84.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, et al. ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–6. Value Health. 2012;15(6):835–842. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro JJ, Eddy DM, Kan H, et al. ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Modeling CER Task Forces. Questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility of modeling studies for informing health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):174–182. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.01.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Sullivan AK, Thompson D, Drummond MF. Collection of health-economic data alongside clinical trials: is there a future for piggyback evaluations? Value Health. 2005;8(1):67–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar