A Comparison of International Modeling Methods for Evaluating Health Economics of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.007
Olivia Adair, Felicity Lamrock, James F O'Mahony, Mark Lawler, Ethna McFerran
{"title":"A Comparison of International Modeling Methods for Evaluating Health Economics of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Olivia Adair, Felicity Lamrock, James F O'Mahony, Mark Lawler, Ethna McFerran","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an accepted approach to evaluate cancer screening programs. CEA estimates partially depend on modeling methods and assumptions used. Understanding common practice when modeling cancer relies on complete, accessible descriptions of prior work. This review's objective is to comprehensively examine published CEA modeling methods used to evaluate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from an aspiring modeler's perspective. It compares existing models, highlighting the importance of precise modeling method descriptions and essential factors when modeling CRC progression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were used. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and data items from previous systematic reviews formed a template to extract relevant data. Specific focus included model type, natural history, appropriate data sources, and survival analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-eight studies, with 52 unique models were found. Twelve previously published models were reported in 39 studies, with 39 newly developed models. CRC progression from the onset was commonly modeled, with only 6 models not including it as a model component.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Modeling methods needed to simulate CRC progression depend on the natural history structure and research requirements. For aspiring modelers, accompanying models with clear overviews and extensive modeling assumption descriptions are beneficial. Open-source modeling would also allow model replicability and result in appropriate decisions suggested for CRC screening programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.01.007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an accepted approach to evaluate cancer screening programs. CEA estimates partially depend on modeling methods and assumptions used. Understanding common practice when modeling cancer relies on complete, accessible descriptions of prior work. This review's objective is to comprehensively examine published CEA modeling methods used to evaluate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening from an aspiring modeler's perspective. It compares existing models, highlighting the importance of precise modeling method descriptions and essential factors when modeling CRC progression.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were used. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and data items from previous systematic reviews formed a template to extract relevant data. Specific focus included model type, natural history, appropriate data sources, and survival analysis.

Results: Seventy-eight studies, with 52 unique models were found. Twelve previously published models were reported in 39 studies, with 39 newly developed models. CRC progression from the onset was commonly modeled, with only 6 models not including it as a model component.

Conclusions: Modeling methods needed to simulate CRC progression depend on the natural history structure and research requirements. For aspiring modelers, accompanying models with clear overviews and extensive modeling assumption descriptions are beneficial. Open-source modeling would also allow model replicability and result in appropriate decisions suggested for CRC screening programs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
目的:成本效益分析(CEA)是评估癌症筛查计划的一种公认方法。成本效益分析的估计值部分取决于所使用的建模方法和假设。要了解癌症建模的常见做法,需要对先前的工作进行完整、易懂的描述。本综述旨在从一个有抱负的建模者的角度,全面考察已发表的用于评估结直肠癌(CRC)筛查的 CEA 建模方法。它对现有模型进行了比较,强调了精确建模方法描述的重要性,以及建立 CRC 进展模型时的基本要素:方法:使用 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science 和 Scopus 电子数据库。综合卫生经济评估报告标准(CHEERS)声明和以往系统综述中的数据项构成了提取相关数据的模板。具体重点包括模型类型、自然历史、适当的数据来源和生存分析:结果:共发现 78 项研究,52 个独特的模型。39 项研究报告了 12 个以前发表的模型,39 个新开发的模型。从发病开始的 CRC 进展模型很常见,只有 6 个模型没有将其作为模型的组成部分:结论:模拟 CRC 进展所需的建模方法取决于自然史结构和研究要求。对于有抱负的建模者来说,随模型提供清晰的概述和广泛的建模假设说明是有益的。开放源码建模还能使模型具有可复制性,并为 CRC 筛查计划提供适当的决策建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Performance of the EQ-5D-5L with skin irritation and self-confidence bolt-on items in patients with urticaria. The Value of Positron Emission Tomography for Confirmation of Alzheimer's Disease in the Era of Amyloid-Targeting Therapies. Use of Real-World Evidence in Health Technology Reassessments Across Six Health Technology Assessment Agencies. A Comprehensive View of the Methods Used to Measure the Societal Impact of Healthcare Interventions: A Systematic Review. A systematic review and meta-analysis of health state utility values for infectious diseases with pandemic potential and associated vaccine adverse reactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1