Table 1.

Checklist for model-based economic evaluations of diagnostic tests

Domain	Question
1. Decision problem and scope specified	1. Is there a clear statement of the decision problem?
	2 Is the perspective of the model stated clearly?
	3 Has the target population been identified?
	4 Are the model inputs consistent with the stated perspective?
	5 Are the primary outcomes of the model consistent with the perspective, scope and overall objective of the model?
2. Identification and description of comparators	6. Have all feasible and practical options been identified?
	7. Have the comparators being evaluated been clearly described?
	8. If comparators have been excluded from the evaluation, have these exclusions been justified?
3. Appropriate data identification	9. Are the data identification methods transparent, systematic and appropriate given the objectives of the model?
4. Sufficient detail for data incorporation	10. Have all data incorporated into the model been described and referenced in sufficient detail?
	11. Where choices have been made between data sources, are these justified appropriately?
	12. Are transition probabilities calculated appropriately?
	13. Has discounting been conducted?
5. Quality and incorporation of test accuracy data	14. Has the quality of the test accuracy data been assessed?
	15. Have diagnostic accuracy data been derived from high quality data sources (hierarchy of evidence)?
	16. Are tests in sequence treated dependently, where appropriate?
6. Quality and incorporation of treatment data	17. Has the quality of the treatment effect data been assessed?
	18. Have relative treatment effects been derived from high quality data sources (hierarchy of evidence)?
7. Source and incorporation of cost data	19. Has the source of cost data been presented clearly?
	20. Have costs been inflated to a specific year, where appropriate?
8. Source and incorporation of utility data	21. Is the source for the utility weights referenced and justified?
	22. Are the utilities incorporated into the model appropriately?
9. Model structure	23. Have the reasons behind the type of decision analytic model chosen been fully described and justified?
	24. Has a systematic review of existing economic evaluations been carried out?
	25. Is the structure of the model consistent with a coherent theory of the health condition under evaluation?
	26. Are the structural assumptions underpinning the model transparent and justified?
	27. Have the methods used to extrapolate short-term results to final outcomes been documented and justified?
	28. Has the time horizon been stated and justified?
	29. Has cycle length of Markov models been justified?
10. Uncertainty	30. Has parameter uncertainty been addressed via sensitivity analysis?
	31. Has probabilistic sensitivity analysis been carried out? If not, has this omission been justified?
	32. If data are incorporated as point estimates, are the ranges used for sensitivity analysis stated clearly and justified?
	33. If data have been incorporated as distributions, has the choice of distribution for each parameter been described and justified?
	34. Have structural uncertainties been addressed via sensitivity analysis?
	35. Have alternative assumptions related to final outcomes been explored through sensitivity analysis?
	36. Has value of information analysis been done?
11. Validity	37. Has the face validity been reviewed by someone external to the model developers?
	38. Has the mathematical logic of the model been assessed? (e.g. using null and extreme values)
	39. Have the model and its results been compared to the findings of other models and studies, and any disagreements or inconsistencies been explained (cross-validity)?