the imaginary worlds of ispor: modeled cost-effectiveness claims published in value in health from january 2016 to december 2016

Clicks: 140
ID: 174547
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 #103 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
In 2016, a review of modeled cost-effectiveness studies published in Value in Health between January 2015 and December 2015 was presented. The purpose of the review was to consider whether these modeled claims for cost-effectiveness met the standards of normal science: were the claims made credible, evaluable and replicable? The review concluded that none of the 16 studies assessed met this standard. They should be seen as thought experiments; the construction of imaginary worlds which should be categorized as pseudoscience. The reader, or health care decision maker, would have had no idea, and would never know, whether the claims were right, wrong or misleading. Similar reviews were undertaken in Pharmacoeconomics and the Journal of Medical Economics and came to the same conclusion. The purpose of this second review is to consider the modeled claims published in Value in Health between January 2016 and December 2016, applying the same criteria. Unfortunately, for those who subscribe to the standards of normal science, we must come to the same conclusion. Of the 13 economic evaluations reviewed, 12 simulated claims that were immune to failure. The model structures ensured that the claims were neither evaluable nor replicable. They were categorized as pseudoscience; they failed to meet the standards of normal science. Five of these studies were supported by manufacturers and all supported the manufacturer’s product. Three systematic reviews were also evaluated. Once again, there was a failure to consider meeting the standards of normal science in presenting modeled claims for cost-effectiveness.   Type: Commentary
Reference Key
langley2017innovationsthe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Paul C Langley;Taeho Greg Rhee
Journal food control
Year 2017
DOI
10.24926/iip.v8i2.519
URL
https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/innovations/article/view/519
Keywords Keywords not found

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.