SandersGDBayoumiAMSundaramV. Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(6):570–85.
2.
PaltielADWeinsteinMCKimmelAD. Expanded screening for HIV in the United States—an analysis of cost-effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(6):586–95.
3.
MandelblattJSCroninKABaileyS. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):738–47.
4.
ZauberAGLansdorp-VogelaarIKnudsenABWilschutJvan BallegooijenMKuntzKM. Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):659–69.
5.
EddyDMAdlerJPattersonBLucasDSmithKAMorrisM. Individualized guidelines: the potential for increasing quality and reducing costs. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(9):627–34.
6.
HaywardRAKrumholzHMZulmanDMTimbieJWVijanS. Optimizing statin treatment for primary prevention of coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(2):69–77.
7.
EddyDMHollingworthWCaroJJTsevatJMcDonaldKMWongJB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):733–743.
8.
PhilipsZBojkeLSculpherMClaxtonKGolderS. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24(4):355–71.
9.
SculpherMFenwickEClaxtonK. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. PharmacoEconomics. 2000;17(5):461–77.
10.
WeinsteinMCO’BrienBHornbergerJ. 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(1):9–17.
11.
KarnonJGoyderETappendenP. A review and critique of modelling in prioritising and designing screening programmers. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(52):iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–145.
12.
BrandeauMLMcCoyJHHupertNHoltyJEBravataDM. Recommendations for modeling disaster responses in public health and medicine: a position paper of the Society for Medical Decision Making. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(4):438–60.
13.
BaggerlyKACoombesKR. What information should be required to support clinical “omics” publications?Clin Chemist. 2011;57(5):688–90.
14.
PottiADressmanHKBildA. Retraction: genomic signatures to guide the use of chemotherapeutics. Nat Med. 2011;17(1):135.
15.
Committee on the Review of Omics-Based Tests for Predicting Patient Outcomes in Clinical Trials, Board on Health Care Services, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine.Evolution of Translational Omics: Lessons Learned and the Path Forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.
16.
Committee on the Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Science, National Research Council.Sharing PublicationRelated Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 2003.
17.
PengRD. Reproducible research in computational science. Science. 2011;334(6060):1226–7.
18.
DonohoDL. An invitation to reproducible computational research. Biostatistics. 2010;11(3):385–8.
Office of Management and Budget. OMB Circular A-110, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations.” 1999. Available from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_a110-finalnotice. Accessed 23 January 2012.
21.
DresserR. Accountability in science and government: is access the answer?Hastings Cent Rep. 2000;30(3):29–30.
22.
BarnesN. Publish your computer code: it is good enough. Nature. 467(7317):753.
23.
SteenRG. Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?J Med Ethics. 2011;37(4):249–53.
