Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 799

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Model Transparency and Validation: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7

Open access
Eddy, David M., Hollingworth, William, Caro, J. Jaime, Tsevat, Joel, McDonald, Kathryn M., Wong, John B.·2012·Medical Decision Making
DOI 10.1177/0272989x12454579
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Trust and confidence are critical to the success of health care models. There are two main methods for achieving this: transparency (people can see how the model is built) and validation (how well it reproduces reality). This report describes recommendations for achieving transparency and validation, developed by a task force appointed by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Society for Medical Decision Making (SMDM). Recommendations were developed iteratively by the authors. A nontechnical description should be made available to anyone—including model type and intended applications; funding sources; structure; inputs, outputs, other components that determine function, and their relationships; data sources; validation methods and results; and limitations. Technical documentation, written in sufficient detail to enable a reader with necessary expertise to evaluate the model and potentially reproduce it, should be made available openly or under agreements that protect intellectual property, at the discretion of the modelers. Validation involves face validity (wherein experts evaluate model structure, data sources, assumptions, and results), verification or internal validity (check accuracy of coding), cross validity (comparison of results with other models analyzing same problem), external validity (comparing model results to real-world results), and predictive validity (comparing model results with prospectively observed events). The last two are the strongest form of validation. Each section of this paper contains a number of recommendations that were iterated among the authors, as well as the wider modeling task force jointly set up by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society for Medical Decision Making.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0272989x12454579

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. 10.1177/0272989X12454941 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1177/0272989X12455462 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1177/0272989X12454578 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/0272989X12458348 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1586/14737167.4.2.189 · DOI
  6. 10.3310/hta11520 · DOI
  7. 10.1186/1471-2458-10-710 · DOI
  8. 10.2165/00019053-200624040-00006 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.3310/hta8360 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.2165/00019053-200017050-00005 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.45061.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.2105/AJPH.77.11.1417 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1177/027298902237969 · DOI
  15. 10.1056/NEJM200103153441108 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1056/NEJMsa060247 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1056/NEJMsa042088 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-3-200908040-00138 · DOI
  19. 10.7326/0003-4819-134-6-200103200-00008 · DOI
  20. 10.7326/0003-4819-122-9-199505010-00001 · DOI
  21. 10.1056/NEJMsa051989 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1016/S1532-0464(02)00006-0 · DOI
  23. 10.2337/diacare.26.11.3102 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.2337/dc08-0521 · DOI
  25. 10.1126/science.1218263 · DOI
  26. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxp014 · DOI
  27. 10.1093/aje/kwj093 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxq027 · DOI
  29. 10.1017/S0266462300003007 · DOI · Paper page
  30. BMJ. Health economics. Accessed from: http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-types/research/health-economics
  31. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxq031 · DOI
  32. 10.1038/467401b · DOI
  33. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxq033 · DOI
  34. JAMA. Instructions for authors. Accessed from: http://jama.ama-assn.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml
  35. McHaney R. Computer Simulation: A Practical Perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1991.
  36. 10.1007/978-1-4419-8724-2 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Law AM, Kelton WD. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007.
  38. 10.1177/0272989X05280561 · DOI
  39. 10.1056/NEJMoa050518 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.2337/dc07-9919 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00244 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.2165/11314830-000000000-00000 · DOI
  43. 10.1136/bmj.38446.498542.8F · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1136/bmj.38068.557998.EE · DOI · Paper page
  45. 10.1136/bmj.38336.804167.47 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00698.x · DOI
  47. 10.1002/1097-0142(19870901)60:5<1117::AID-CNCR2820600533>3.0.CO;2-H · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19870901)60:5<1117::aid-cncr2820600533>3.0.co;2-h

Cited by

See all 799

Metadata

Authors
Eddy, D. M., Hollingworth, W., Caro, J. J., Tsevat, J., McDonald, K. M., & Wong, J. B.
Venue
Medical Decision Making
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-09
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
733-743
ISSN
  • 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-681X
DOI
10.1177/0272989x12454579
OpenAlex
W2134023402
Cited by
799
References
8
FWCI
97.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Model Transparency and Validation: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x12454579
The paper
Eddy, D. M., Hollingworth, W., Caro, J. J., Tsevat, J., McDonald, K. M., & Wong, J. B. (2012). Model Transparency and Validation: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x12454579

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.