Dimensions of quality | Questions for critical appraisal | Response (Yes/no/partial/unclear/NA) | Comments |
---|---|---|---|

S1: Statement of decision problem/objective | Is there a clear statement of the decision problem? | ||

Is the objective of the evaluation and model specified and consistent with the stated decision problem? | |||

Is the primary decision maker specified? | |||

S2: Statement of scope/perspective | Is the perspective of the model stated clearly? | ||

Are the model inputs consistent with the stated perspective? | |||

Has the scope of the model been stated and justified? | |||

Are the outcomes of the model consistent with the perspective, scope and overall objective of the model? | |||

S3: Rationale for structure | Has the evidence regarding the model structure been described? | ||

Is the structure of the model consistent with a coherent theory of the health condition under evaluation? | |||

Have any competing theories regarding model structure been considered? | |||

Are the sources of data used to develop the structure of the model specified? | |||

Are the causal relationships described by the model structure justified appropriately? | |||

S4: Structural assumptions | Are the structural assumptions transparent and justified? | ||

Are the structural assumptions reasonable given the overall objective, perspective and scope of the model? | |||

S5: Strategies/comparators | Is there a clear definition of the options under evaluation? | ||

Have all feasible and practical options been evaluated? | |||

Is there justification for the exclusion of feasible options? | |||

S6: Model type | Is the chosen model type appropriate given the decision problem and specified causal relationships within the model? | ||

S7: Time horizon | Is the time horizon of the model sufficient to reflect all important differences between options? | ||

Is the time horizon of the model, and the duration of treatment and treatment effect described and justified? | |||

Has a lifetime horizon been used? If not, has a shorter time horizon been justified? | |||

S8: Disease states/pathways | Do the disease states (state transition model) or the pathways (decision tree model) reflect the underlying biological process of the disease in question and the impact of interventions? | ||

S9: Cycle length | Is the cycle length defined and justified in terms of the natural history of disease? | ||

D1: Data identification | Are the data identification methods transparent and appropriate given the objectives of the model? | ||

Where choices have been made between data sources, are these justified appropriately? | |||

Has particular attention been paid to identifying data for the important parameters in the model? | |||

Has the process of selecting key parameters been justified and systematic methods used to identify the most appropriate data? | |||

Has the quality of the data been assessed appropriately? | |||

Where expert opinion has been used, are the methods described and justified? | |||

D2: Pre-model data | Are the pre-model data analysis methodology based on justifiable statistical and epidemiological techniques? | ||

D2a: Baseline data | Is the choice of baseline data described and justified? | ||

Are transition probabilities calculated appropriately? | |||

Has a half cycle correction been applied to both cost and outcome? | |||

D2b: Treatment effects | If relative treatment effects have been derived from trial data, have they been synthesised using appropriate techniques? | ||

Have the methods and assumptions used to extrapolate short-term results to final outcomes been documented and justified? Have alternative assumptions been explored through sensitivity analysis? | |||

Have assumptions regarding the continuing effect of treatment once treatment is complete been documented and justified? Have alternative assumptions been explored through sensitivity analysis? | |||

D2c: Quality-of-life weights (utilities) | Are the utilities incorporated into the model appropriate? | ||

Is the source for the utility weights referenced? | |||

Are the methods of derivation for the utility weights justified? | |||

D3: Data incorporation | Have all data incorporated into the model been described and referenced in sufficient detail? | ||

Has the use of mutually inconsistent data been justified (i.e. are assumptions and choices appropriate)? | |||

Is the process of data incorporation transparent? | |||

If data have been incorporated as distributions, has the choice of distribution for each parameter been described and justified? | |||

D4: Assessment of uncertainty | Have the four principal types of uncertainty been addressed? | ||

If not, has the omission of particular forms of uncertainty been justified? | |||

D4a: Methodological | Have methodological uncertainties been addressed by running alternative versions of the model with different methodological assumptions? | ||

D4b: Structural | Is there evidence that structural uncertainties have been addressed via sensitivity analysis? | ||

D4c: Heterogeneity | Has heterogeneity been dealt with by running the model separately for different sub-groups? | ||

D4d: Parameter | Are the methods of assessment of parameter uncertainty appropriate? | ||

Has probabilistic sensitivity analysis been done, if not has this been justified? | |||

If data are incorporated as point estimates, are the ranges used for sensitivity analysis stated and justified? | |||

C1: Internal consistency | Is there evidence that the mathematical logic of the model has been tested thoroughly before use? | ||

C2: External consistency | Are the conclusions valid given the data presented? | ||

Are any counterintuitive results from the model explained and justified? | |||

If the model has been calibrated against independent data, have any differences been explained and justified? | |||

Have the results of the model been compared with those of previous models and any differences in results explained? |