↓ Skip to main content

Replicating Health Economic Models: Firm Foundations or a House of Cards?

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Replicating Health Economic Models: Firm Foundations or a House of Cards?
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40273-017-0553-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inigo Bermejo, Paul Tappenden, Ji-Hee Youn

Abstract

Health economic evaluation is a framework for the comparative analysis of the incremental health gains and costs associated with competing decision alternatives. The process of developing health economic models is usually complex, financially expensive and time-consuming. For these reasons, model development is sometimes based on previous model-based analyses; this endeavour is usually referred to as model replication. Such model replication activity may involve the comprehensive reproduction of an existing model or 'borrowing' all or part of a previously developed model structure. Generally speaking, the replication of an existing model may require substantially less effort than developing a new de novo model by bypassing, or undertaking in only a perfunctory manner, certain aspects of model development such as the development of a complete conceptual model and/or comprehensive literature searching for model parameters. A further motivation for model replication may be to draw on the credibility or prestige of previous analyses that have been published and/or used to inform decision making. The acceptability and appropriateness of replicating models depends on the decision-making context: there exists a trade-off between the 'savings' afforded by model replication and the potential 'costs' associated with reduced model credibility due to the omission of certain stages of model development. This paper provides an overview of the different levels of, and motivations for, replicating health economic models, and discusses the advantages, disadvantages and caveats associated with this type of modelling activity. Irrespective of whether replicated models should be considered appropriate or not, complete replicability is generally accepted as a desirable property of health economic models, as reflected in critical appraisal checklists and good practice guidelines. To this end, the feasibility of comprehensive model replication is explored empirically across a small number of recent case studies. Recommendations are put forward for improving reporting standards to enhance comprehensive model replicability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Computer Science 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Physics and Astronomy 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 6 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,054,895
of 22,992,311 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#706
of 1,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,674
of 317,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#15
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,992,311 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.