1. Briggs, AH, Weinstein, MC, Fenwick, EAL, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-6. Value Health. 2012;15:835–42.
Google Scholar | Crossref2. Bojke, L, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, et al. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health. 2009;12:739–49.
Google Scholar | Crossref3. Bilcke, J, Beutels, P, Brisson, M, et al. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 2011;31:675–92.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals4. Briggs, AH . Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:479–500.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI5. Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, McCabe, C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14:339–47.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Briggs, AH . Statistical approaches to handling uncertainty in health economic evaluation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;16:551–61.
Google Scholar | Crossref7. Kim, LG, Thompson, SG. Uncertainty and validation of health economic decision models. Health Econ. 2010;19:43–55.
Google Scholar | Medline | ISI8. Briggs, A, Sculpher, M, Buxton, M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 1994;3:95–104.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI9. Groot Koerkamp, B, Weinstein, MC, Stijnen, T, et al. Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:194–205.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI10. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) . Guide to the processes of technology appraisal. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-technology-appraisal-guidance/process. Accessed January 14, 2021.
Google Scholar11. Australian Government Department of Health . Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). Available from: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/. Accessed January 14, 2021.
Google Scholar12. Sanders, GD, Neumann, PJ, Basu, A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093–103.
Google Scholar | Crossref13. Hay, J, Jackson, J, Luce, B, et al. Panel 2: methodological issues in conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations—modeling studies. Value Health. 1999;2:78–81.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Weinstein, MC, O’Brien, B, Hornberger, J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6:9–17.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI15. Mauskopf, J . Multivariable and structural uncertainty analyses for cost-effectiveness estimates: back to the future. Value Health. 2019;22:570–74.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Brisson, M, Edmunds, W. Impact of model, methodological, and parameter uncertainty in the economic analysis of vaccination programs. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:434–46.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals17. Von Schéele, B, Mauskopf, J, Brodtkorb, T-H, et al. Relationship between modeling technique and reported outcomes: case studies in models for the treatment of schizophrenia. Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14:235–57.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Orchard, TJ, Dorman, JS, Maser, RE, et al. Factors associated with avoidance of severe complications after 25 yr of IDDM: Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications Study I. Diabetes Care. 1990;13:741–7.
Google Scholar | Crossref19. Nathan, DM, Zinman, B, Cleary, PA, et al. Modern-day clinical course of type 1 diabetes mellitus after 30 years’ duration: the diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications and Pittsburgh epidemiology of diabetes complications experience (1983-2005). Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1307–16.
Google Scholar | Medline20. Americal Diabetes Association Consensus (ADAC) Panel . Guidelines for computer modeling of diabetes and its complications. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:2262–65.
Google Scholar21. Kent, S, Becker, F, Feenstra, T, et al. The challenge of transparency and validation in health economic decision modelling: a view from mount hood. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(11):1305–12.
Google Scholar | Crossref22. Palmer, AJ, Si, L, Tew, M, et al. Computer modeling of diabetes and its transparency: a report on the eighth mount hood challenge. Value Health. 2018;21:724–31.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline23. Haji Ali Afzali, H, Bojke, L, Karnon, J. Improving decision-making processes in health: is it time for (disease-specific) reference models? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2020;18(1):1–4.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline24. Brown, JB, Palmer, AJ, Bisgaard, P, et al. The Mt. Hood challenge: cross-testing two diabetes simulation models. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000;50:S57–64.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline25. Mount Hood 4 Modelling Group . Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the Fourth Mount Hood Challenge Meeting. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:1638.
Google Scholar | Crossref26. Si, L, Willis, MS, Asseburg, C, et al. Evaluating the ability of economic models of diabetes to simulate new cardiovascular outcomes trials: a report on the Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge. Value Health. 2020;23:1163–70.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline27. Hua, X, Lung, TW-C, Palmer, A, et al. How consistent is the relationship between improved glucose control and modelled health outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus? A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:319–29.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline28. ADVANCE Collaborative Group . ADVANCE—Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: patient recruitment and characteristics of the study population at baseline. Diabetic Med. 2005;22:882–8.
Google Scholar | Crossref29. Beaudet, A, Clegg, J, Thuresson, PO, et al. Review of utility values for economic modeling in type 2 diabetes. Value Health. 2014;17:462–70.
Google Scholar | Crossref30. Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, McCabe, C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14:339–47.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline31. Doubilet, P, Begg, CB, Weinstein, MC, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation: a practical approach. Med Decis Making. 1985;5:157–77.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals32. Clarke, P, Gray, A, Briggs, A, et al. Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72). Diabetologia. 2005;48:868–77.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline33. Palmer, AJ . Computer modeling of diabetes and its complications: a report on the fifth Mount Hood Challenge meeting. Value Health. 2013;16:670–85.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline34. Strong, M, Pilgrim, H, Oakley, J, et al. Structural Uncertainty in Health Economic Decision Models. ScHARR Occasional Paper. 2009.
Google Scholar35. Dadwani, RS, Laiteerapong, N. Economic simulation modeling in type 2 diabetes. Curr Diabetes Rep. 2020;20:1–11.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline36. Clarke, P, Gray, A, Holman, R. Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Making. 2002;22:340–9.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline37. Laxy, M, Becker, J, Kähm, K, et al. Utility decrements associated with diabetes and related complications: estimates from a population-based study in Germany. Value Health. 2021;24(2):274–80.
Google Scholar | Crossref38. Lung, TWC, Hayes, AJ, Hayen, A, et al. A meta-analysis of health state valuations for people with diabetes: explaining the variation across methods and implications for economic evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1669–78.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline39. Pan, C-W, Sun, H-P, Zhou, H-J, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetes patients in China. Med Decis Making. 2015;36:234–41.
Google Scholar | Medline40. Peasgood, T, Brennan, A, Mansell, P, et al. The impact of diabetes-related complications on preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in adults with type I diabetes. Med Decis Making. 2016;36:1020–33.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals41. Sakamaki, H, Ikeda, S, Ikegami, N, et al. Measurement of HRQL using EQ-5D in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan. Value Health. 2006;9:47–53.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI42. Clarke, PM, Gray, AM, Briggs, A, et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68). Diabetologia. 2004;47:1747–59.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline