Reporting health care decision models: a prospective reliability study of a multidimensional evaluation framework

References

• Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332:699–703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller D, Pulm J, Gandjour A. Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting and treating individuals at increased risk of osteoporosis or osteopenia: a systematic review. Value Health. 2012;15:284–298.
   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:iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–158.
   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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices–Modelling Studies. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modelling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices–Modelling 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;15:796–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Types of reliability. In: Research methods knowledge base. 2014 [cited 2014 Feb 9]. Available from: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/reltypes.php.
   Google Scholar
• Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intra-class correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Au F, Prahardi S, Shiell A. Reliability of two instruments for critical assessment of economic evaluations. Value Health. 2008;11:435–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerkens S, Crott R, Cleemput I, et al. Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:318–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong EP, Malone DC, Erder MH. A Markov cost-utility analysis of escitalopram and duloxetine for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:1115–1121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demyttenaere K, Hemels ME, Hudry J, et al. A cost-effectiveness model of escitalopram, citalopram,and venlafaxine as first-line treatment for major depressive disorder in Belgium. Clin Ther. 2005;27:111–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulp W, von der Schulenburg JM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of outpatient treatment in depressive patients with escitalopram in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6:317–321.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thurston SJ, Heeg B, de Charro F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in STEMI patients in the Netherlands: a model based on the CLARITY trial. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26:641–651.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindgren P, Jönsson B, Yusuf S. Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes in Sweden: a long-term model based on the CURE trial. J Intern Med. 2004;255:562–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karnon J, Brennan A, Pandor A, et al. Modelling the long term cost effectiveness of clopidogrel for the secondary prevention of occlusive vascular events in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:101–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaudet A, Palmer JL, Timlin L, et al. Cost-utility of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. J Med Econ. 2011;14:357–366.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ray JA, Boye KS, Yurgin N, et al. Exenatide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK: a model of long-term clinical and cost outcomes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:609–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha A, Rajan M, Hoerger T, et al. Costs and consequences associated with newer medications for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:695–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The GRADE approach 2015. [cited 2015 Oct 5]. Available from: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/toolbox/index.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Graham N, Haines T, Goldsmith CH, et al. Reliability of 3 assessment tools used to evaluate randomized controlled trials for treatment of neck pain. Spine. 2012;37:515–522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crowe M, Sheppard L, Campbell A. Reliability analysis for a proposed critical appraisal tool demonstrated value for diverse research designs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:375–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oremus M, Oremus C, Hall GB, et al. ECT & Cognition Systematic Review Team. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of quality assessments by novice student assessors using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. BMJ Open. 2012;2:pii: e001368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm MP, et al. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:982–993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Green S. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Version 5.1.0. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of intervention. 2014 [ updated 2011 Mar; cited 2014 Feb 9]. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_assessing_risk_of_bias_in_included_studies.htm.
   Google Scholar