Skip to main content
Log in

Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment

A Review and Consolidation of Quality Assessment

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of health technology assessment (HTA) has increased dramatically in recent years. Several guidelines for best practice have emerged in the literature; however, there is no agreed standard for what constitutes a ‘good model’ or how models should be formally assessed. The objective of this paper is to identify, review and consolidate existing guidelines on the use of decision-analytic modelling for the purpose of HTA and to develop a consistent framework against which the quality of models may be assessed.

The review and resultant framework are summarised under the three key themes of Structure, Data and Consistency. ‘Structural’ aspects relate to the scope and mathematical structure of the model including the strategies under evaluation. Issues covered under the general heading of ‘Data’ include data identification methods and how uncertainty should be addressed. ‘Consistency’ relates to the overall quality of the model.

The review of existing guidelines showed that although authors may provide a consistent message regarding some aspects of modelling, such as the need for transparency, they are contradictory in other areas. Particular areas of disagreement are how data should be incorporated into models and how uncertainty should be assessed.

For the purpose of evaluation, the resultant framework is applied to a decision-analytic model developed as part of an appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK. As a further assessment, the review based on the framework is compared with an assessment provided by an independent experienced modeller not using the framework.

It is hoped that the framework developed here may form part of the appraisals process for assessment bodies such as NICE and decision models submitted to peer review journals. However, given the speed with which decision-modelling methodology advances, there is a need for its continual update.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Mutually exclusive healthcare strategies may include sequences or combinations of therapies. Each distinct sequence or combination should be modelled separately.

  2. Decision-tree models are often symmetrical. This means that all of the strategies under evaluation model prognosis in the same way and that the financial costs, mortality and morbidity that can accrue from one action in one context also accrue from that same action in another context.[12]

References

  1. Briggs AH, Goeree R, Blackhouse G, et al. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophagael reflux disease. Med Decis Making 2002; 22: 290–308

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18 (3): 341–364

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet 2002; 360: 711–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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 (36): iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–158

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 461–477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kendrick M, Johnson K. Long term treatment of Multiple Sclerosis with interferon beta may be cost effective. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 45–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Decision analytic modelling in the economic evaluation of health technologies: a consensus statement. Phannacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 443–4

  9. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 1997; 6 (3): 217–227

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Eddy DM. Technology assessment: the role of mathematical modelling. In: Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use, Institute of Medicine, editors. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985: 144–160

    Google Scholar 

  11. Habbema JD, Bossuyt PM, Dippel DW, et al. Analysing clinical decision analyses. Stat Med 1990; 9 (11): 1229–1242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Halpern MT, Luce BR, Brown RE, et al. Health and economic outcomes modeling practices: a suggested framework. Value Health 1998; 1 (2): 131–147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hay J, Jackson J. Panel 2: methodological issues in conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations: modeling studies. Value Health 1999; 2 (2): 78–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. ISPOR Task Force. Principles of good practice for decisionanalytic modeling in health care evaluation. Value Health 2003; 6: 9–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McCabe C, Dixon S. Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 501–513

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nuijten MJ, Pronk MH, Brorens MJ, et al. Reporting format for economic evaluation: part II. Focus on modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14 (3): 259–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ramsey SD. Evaluating evidence from a decision analysis. J Am Board Fam Pract 1999; 12 (5): 395–402

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sendi PP, Craig BA, Pfluger D, et al. Systematic validation of disease models for pharmacoeconomic evaluations: Swiss HIV Cohort Study. J Eval Clin Pract 1999; 5 (3): 283–295

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sonnenberg FA, Roberts MS, Tsevat J, et al. Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Med Care 1994; 32 (7 Suppl.): JS52–JS64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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  Google Scholar 

  21. Weinstein MC, Toy EL, Sandberg EA, et al. Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: uses, roles, and validity. Value Health 2001; 4 (5): 348–361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17 (5): 479–500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Elisabeth Fenwick provided the independent assessment of the case study models used here. The expert advisory group comprised: Pelham Barton (Health Service Management Centre, University of Birmingham, UK); Colin Green (National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, University of Southampton, UK); Luke Vale (Health Service Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, UK); Chris McCabe (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK); Suzy Paisley (School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK); Alec Miners (Technology Appraisals Team, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, UK); Steve Palmer (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK); and Elisabeth Fenwick (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK). However, the views in this paper are those of the authors alone.

This study was funded by the NHS Research and Development Health Technology Assessment Programme. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the UK Department of Health.

Mark Sculpher also received funding via a Career Award in Public Health funded by the NHS Research and Development Programme.

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoë Philips.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Philips, Z., Bojke, L., Sculpher, M. et al. Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 24, 355–371 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006

Keywords

Navigation