Table 2.
Quality characteristics of modelling studies
| Author/Study (year of publication) |
Brändle et al. [25] | Cameron et al. [21] | McEwan et al. [23] | Grima et al. [22] | Warren et al. [24] | Warren et al. [20] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research question clearly defined | (✓) | (✓) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Perspective named | (✓) | (✓) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Considered health effects | HbA1c, hypoglycaemia, fear of hypogl. |
HbA1c, hypoglycaemia, fear of hypogl.1 |
HbA1c, hypoglycaemia, fear of hypogl. |
HbA1c | HbA1c1, hypoglycaemia, fear of hypogl. |
HbA1c1, hypoglycaemia, fear of hypogl. |
| Source of efficacy data | Meta-analysis2, Meta-regression |
Meta-analysis | Meta-analysis2 | RCT | RCT | Meta-analysis, RCT |
| Determination of efficacy via information synthesis | - | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | - |
| Complications of diabetes considered | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓1 | ✓1 |
| All relevant costs considered | ✓ | (✓) | (✓) | (✓) | (✓) | (✓) |
| Discounting (rate) | C (3,5%), E (3,5%) |
C (5%), E (5%) |
C (3,5%), E (3,5%) |
C (5%), E (5%) |
C (3,5%), E (3,5%) |
C (3,5%), E (3,5%) |
| Incremental analysis | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Sensitivity analysis | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Results of sensitivity analysis described | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | (✓) |
| Results presented per capita | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Research question answered | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Strength and weakness of studies discussed | - | ✓ | - | ✓ | (✓) | (✓) |
Legends: C = cost, E = effectiveness, HbA1c = haemoglobin A1c, RCT = randomised controlled trial. 1Parameter included in sensitivity analysis only, 2unpublished material