PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Reporting health care decision models: A prospective reliability study of a multidimensional evaluation framework.

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Müller, D.* ; Gerber-Grote, A.* ; Stollenwerk, B. ; Stock, S.* ; Auweiler, P.* ; Frey, S.* ; Adarkwah, C.C.* ; de Kinderen, R.* ; Hellmich, M.*

Reporting health care decision models: A prospective reliability study of a multidimensional evaluation framework.

Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 16, 619-627 (2015)

DOI

Open Access Green as soon as Postprint is submitted to ZB.

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

© 2015 Taylor & Francis The aim of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of the Phillips-checklist, a proposed framework for the quality assessment of modeling studies. Six raters evaluated nine modeling studies from three different medical specialties. Intra-class correlation (ICC) and corresponding variance components were estimated from these studies. Raters were asked to comment on their experience with the framework. While overall the mean inter-rater reliability showed no significant rater-effect (ICC = 0.69, p = 0.064), there was – presumably as a result of a lower study variability – a significant rater effect for clopidogrel only (p < 0.001). The framework allowed a more structured methodological assessment but several items remained unclear. Regarding the quality assessment of modeling studies with the proposed framework, the rater variability is similar or even higher than variability because of studies or residual effects. Several scoring items can and should be improved to ease interpretation.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Scopus
Cited By

Altmetric

1.669

0.788