Table 4.

Summary of the items most frequently criticised by CEESP.

Category	Most frequently reported criticisms
Health states and cost	Robustness of clinical data Extrapolation of survival curve from immature data while more mature data is available Management of adverse events in the model questionable No discussion on similarity of adverse events and their costs between the modelled strategies Consumed resources are derived from expert opinion, without the experts being documented Inconsistent utility data Validation poorly described
Modelling	Hypotheses and extrapolation choices for probability estimates are insufficiently justified Poor or unsatisfactory documentation of structural hypotheses used in the model Transition probabilities extrapolation not conservative Adverse events are not included in the model or not taken into account in utilities or cost calculations Aggregation of heterogeneous health states
Results presentation and sensitivity analyses	Incomplete scenario presented Transferability of results in clinical practice is highly uncertain Lack of sensitivity analyses on some parameters Ranges for parameters used in deterministic sensitivity analysis are not adequately justified Distributions of parameters used in probabilistic sensitivity analysis are not presented or not justified in a comprehensive manner
Structural choice	Choice of comparators used in the analysis does not correspond to comparators used in the indication Insufficient justification for the failure to take into account some of the comparators Time horizon is not appropriate with regard to the evolution of the pathology Perspective selected in the reference case analysis does not match the one recommended by HAS.