↓ Skip to main content

Trusting the Results of Model-Based Economic Analyses: Is there a Pragmatic Validation Solution?

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Trusting the Results of Model-Based Economic Analyses: Is there a Pragmatic Validation Solution?
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40273-018-0711-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Salah Ghabri, Matt Stevenson, Jörgen Möller, J. Jaime Caro

Abstract

Models have become a nearly essential component of health technology assessment. This is because the efficacy and safety data available from clinical trials are insufficient to provide the required estimates of impact of new interventions over long periods of time and for other populations and subgroups. Despite more than five decades of use of these decision-analytic models, decision makers are still often presented with poorly validated models and thus trust in their results is impaired. Among the reasons for this vexing situation are the artificial nature of the models, impairing their validation against observable data, the complexity in their formulation and implementation, the lack of data against which to validate the model results, and the challenges of short timelines and insufficient resources. This article addresses this crucial problem of achieving models that produce results that can be trusted and the resulting requirements for validation and transparency, areas where our field is currently deficient. Based on their differing perspectives and experiences, the authors characterize the situation and outline the requirements for improvement and pragmatic solutions to the problem of inadequate validation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Professor 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Decision Sciences 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 12 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,083,356
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#420
of 1,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,162
of 336,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,866 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 336,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.