validating imaginary worlds? the advishe assessment tool

Clicks: 112
ID: 135327
2017
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #111 of 122 articles by views in food control

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 122 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
The publication in April 2016 of the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic Decision Models (AdViSHE) checklist for decision models raises a number of issues that the health technology assessment literature has yet to address. The principal issue being the role of decision models in generating claims that are evaluable and replicable. Unfortunately, this is not addressed in this new checklist which is intended to address the perceived need for a tradeoff between confidence in a decision model and the need to allocate resources by developers and payers to validating the model. Irrespective of the degree of confidence a developer or payers may have in the sufficiency of the model in representing ‘reality’ unless the model has generated evaluable claims and evidence for those claims in target treating populations, the model fails the standards of normal science. Apart from the absence of a commitment in the AdViSHE checklist to the modeling of claims that are evaluable and replicable, the validation check list makes no allowance for a product pricing strategy that may commits a manufacturer to regular and substantial annual or semi-annual product price increases. Indeed, product pricing assumptions are conspicuous by their absence. The commentary argues that failure to accommodate anticipated pricing behavior renders lifetime cost-per-QALY models and the application of willingness-to-pay thresholds meaningless.   Type: Commentary
Reference Key
langley2017innovationsvalidating Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Paul C Langley
Journal food control
Year 2017
DOI
10.24926/21550417.1343
URL
https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/innovations/article/view/483
Keywords
validation

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.