Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37708188›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

A systematic review of whole disease models for informing healthcare resource allocation decisions.

Huajie Jin, Paul Tappenden, Xiaoxiao Ling, Stewart Robinson, Sarah Byford

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Huajie JinKing's Health Economics (KHE), Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3872-3998
Paul TappendenHealth Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Xiaoxiao LingDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Stewart RobinsonNewcastle University Business School, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
Sarah ByfordKing's Health Economics (KHE), Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7084-1495

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole disease models (WDM) are large-scale, system-level models which can evaluate multiple decision questions across an entire care pathway. Whilst this type of model can offer several advantages as a platform for undertaking economic analyses, the availability and quality of existing WDMs is unknown.

objectivesThis systematic review aimed to identify existing WDMs to explore which disease areas they cover, to critically assess the quality of these models and provide recommendations for future research.

methodsAn electronic search was performed on multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database) on 23rd July 2023. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. Model characteristics were descriptively summarised.

resultsForty-four WDMs were identified, of which thirty-two were developed after 2010. The main disease areas covered by existing WDMs are heart disease, cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome and metabolic disease. The quality of included WDMs is generally low. Common limitations included failure to consider the harms and costs of adverse events (AEs) of interventions, lack of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and poor reporting.

conclusionsThere has been an increase in the number of WDMs since 2010. However, their quality is generally low which means they may require significant modification before they could be re-used, such as modelling AEs of interventions and incorporation of PSA. Sufficient details of the WDMs need to be reported to allow future reuse/adaptation.

Indexed as

Acquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeChecklistCost-Benefit AnalysisCritical PathwaysHumansResource Allocation

Identifiers

PMID37708188
PMCPMC10501624

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.