How Do Diabetes Models Measure Up? A Review of Diabetes Economic Models and ADA Guidelines

**Introduction:** Economic models and computer simulation models have been used for assessing short-term cost-effectiveness of interventions and modelling long-term outcomes and costs. Several guidelines and checklists have been published to improve the methods and reporting. This article presents a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lindsay Govan, Olivia Wu, Robert Lindsay, Andrew Briggs
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Columbia Data Analytics, LLC 2015-12-01
Series:Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.36469/9831
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1823860359824408576
author Lindsay Govan
Olivia Wu
Robert Lindsay
Andrew Briggs
author_facet Lindsay Govan
Olivia Wu
Robert Lindsay
Andrew Briggs
author_sort Lindsay Govan
collection DOAJ
description **Introduction:** Economic models and computer simulation models have been used for assessing short-term cost-effectiveness of interventions and modelling long-term outcomes and costs. Several guidelines and checklists have been published to improve the methods and reporting. This article presents an overview of published diabetes models with a focus on how well the models are described in relation to the considerations described by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines. **Methods:** Relevant electronic databases and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines were searched in December 2012. Studies were included in the review if they estimated lifetime outcomes for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Only unique models, and only the original papers were included in the review. If additional information was reported in subsequent or paired articles, then additional citations were included. References and forward citations of relevant articles, including the previous systematic reviews were searched using a similar method to pearl growing. Four principal areas were included in the ADA guidance reporting for models: transparency, validation, uncertainty, and diabetes specific criteria. **Results:** A total of 19 models were included. Twelve models investigated type 2 diabetes, two developed type 1 models, two created separate models for type 1 and type 2, and three developed joint type 1 and type 2 models. Most models were developed in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe or Canada. Later models use data or methods from earlier models for development or validation. There are four main types of models: Markov-based cohort, Markov-based microsimulations, discrete-time microsimulations, and continuous time differential equations. All models were long-term diabetes models incorporating a wide range of compilations from various organ systems. In early diabetes modelling, before the ADA guidelines were published, most models did not include descriptions of all the diabetes specific components of the ADA guidelines but this improved significantly by 2004. **Conclusion:** A clear, descriptive short summary of the model was often lacking. Descriptions of model validation and uncertainty were the most poorly reported of the four main areas, but there exist conferences focussing specifically on the issue of validation. Interdependence between the complications was the least well incorporated or reported of the diabetes-specific criterion.
format Article
id doaj-art-9310aae32c434a79975b2d5a17aeb7d6
institution Kabale University
issn 2327-2236
language English
publishDate 2015-12-01
publisher Columbia Data Analytics, LLC
record_format Article
series Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research
spelling doaj-art-9310aae32c434a79975b2d5a17aeb7d62025-02-10T16:12:45ZengColumbia Data Analytics, LLCJournal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research2327-22362015-12-0132How Do Diabetes Models Measure Up? A Review of Diabetes Economic Models and ADA GuidelinesLindsay GovanOlivia WuRobert LindsayAndrew Briggs**Introduction:** Economic models and computer simulation models have been used for assessing short-term cost-effectiveness of interventions and modelling long-term outcomes and costs. Several guidelines and checklists have been published to improve the methods and reporting. This article presents an overview of published diabetes models with a focus on how well the models are described in relation to the considerations described by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines. **Methods:** Relevant electronic databases and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines were searched in December 2012. Studies were included in the review if they estimated lifetime outcomes for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Only unique models, and only the original papers were included in the review. If additional information was reported in subsequent or paired articles, then additional citations were included. References and forward citations of relevant articles, including the previous systematic reviews were searched using a similar method to pearl growing. Four principal areas were included in the ADA guidance reporting for models: transparency, validation, uncertainty, and diabetes specific criteria. **Results:** A total of 19 models were included. Twelve models investigated type 2 diabetes, two developed type 1 models, two created separate models for type 1 and type 2, and three developed joint type 1 and type 2 models. Most models were developed in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe or Canada. Later models use data or methods from earlier models for development or validation. There are four main types of models: Markov-based cohort, Markov-based microsimulations, discrete-time microsimulations, and continuous time differential equations. All models were long-term diabetes models incorporating a wide range of compilations from various organ systems. In early diabetes modelling, before the ADA guidelines were published, most models did not include descriptions of all the diabetes specific components of the ADA guidelines but this improved significantly by 2004. **Conclusion:** A clear, descriptive short summary of the model was often lacking. Descriptions of model validation and uncertainty were the most poorly reported of the four main areas, but there exist conferences focussing specifically on the issue of validation. Interdependence between the complications was the least well incorporated or reported of the diabetes-specific criterion.https://doi.org/10.36469/9831
spellingShingle Lindsay Govan
Olivia Wu
Robert Lindsay
Andrew Briggs
How Do Diabetes Models Measure Up? A Review of Diabetes Economic Models and ADA Guidelines
Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research
title How Do Diabetes Models Measure Up? A Review of Diabetes Economic Models and ADA Guidelines
title_full How Do Diabetes Models Measure Up? A Review of Diabetes Economic Models and ADA Guidelines
title_fullStr How Do Diabetes Models Measure Up? A Review of Diabetes Economic Models and ADA Guidelines
title_full_unstemmed How Do Diabetes Models Measure Up? A Review of Diabetes Economic Models and ADA Guidelines
title_short How Do Diabetes Models Measure Up? A Review of Diabetes Economic Models and ADA Guidelines
title_sort how do diabetes models measure up a review of diabetes economic models and ada guidelines
url https://doi.org/10.36469/9831
work_keys_str_mv AT lindsaygovan howdodiabetesmodelsmeasureupareviewofdiabeteseconomicmodelsandadaguidelines
AT oliviawu howdodiabetesmodelsmeasureupareviewofdiabeteseconomicmodelsandadaguidelines
AT robertlindsay howdodiabetesmodelsmeasureupareviewofdiabeteseconomicmodelsandadaguidelines
AT andrewbriggs howdodiabetesmodelsmeasureupareviewofdiabeteseconomicmodelsandadaguidelines