CaroJJBriggsAHSiebertUKuntzKM. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–1. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):667–677.
2.
KarnonJStahlJBrennanACaroJJMarJMöllerJ. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–4. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):701–711.
3.
SiebertUAlagozOBayoumiAM. State-transition modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–3. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):690–700.
4.
PitmanRFismanDZaricGS. Dynamic transmission modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group–5. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):712–721.
5.
RobertsMRussellLBPaltielADChambersMMcEwanPKrahnM. conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–2. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):678–689.
6.
BriggsAHWeinsteinMCFenwickEALKarnonJSculpherMJPaltielAD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group–6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):722–732.
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.
GoldMRSiegelJERussellLBWeinsteinMC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
9.
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.
10.
SahaSHoergerTPignoneMTeutschSHelfandMMandelblattJ. The art and science of incorporating cost effectiveness into evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3, Suppl):36–43.
11.
NeumannPJJohannessonM. From principle to public policy: using cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Aff (Millwood). 1994; 13(3):206–14.
12.
Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Modeling to guide public health research and priorities. Available from: http://cisnet.cancer.gov/. Accessed 20 July 2012.
13.
RamseySWillkeRBriggsA. Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report. Value Health. 2005;8(5):521–33.
EddyD. ACS report on the cancer-related health checkup. CA Cancer J Clin. 1980;30(4):193–240.
16.
EddyDM. The frequency of cervical cancer screening: comparison of a mathematical model with empirical data. Cancer. 1987;60(5):1117–22.
17.
MullerCMMandelblattJSchechterC. The Cost and Effectiveness of Screening for Cervical Cancer in Elderly Women: A Paper in the OTA’s Series on Preventive Services under Medicare. Washington, DC: US Congress, Health Program, Office of Technology Assessment; 1990.
18.
EddyD. Breast Cancer Screening for Medicare Beneficiaries: Effectiveness, Costs to Medicare and Medical Resources Required. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, Health Program, Office of Technology Assessment; 1987.
National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1999.
21.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/. Accessed 24 July 2012.
22.
ElsingaERuttenFF. Economic evaluation in support of national health policy: the case of the Netherlands. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(4):605–20.
23.
WisniveskyJPMushlinAISichermanNHenschkeC. The cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer: preliminary results of baseline screening. Chest. 2003;124(2):614–21.
24.
ManserRDaltonACarterRByrnesGElwoodMCampbellDA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting. Lung Cancer. 2005;48(2):171–85.
25.
MarshallDSimpsonKNEarleCCChuC. Potential cost-effectiveness of one-time screening for lung cancer (LC) in a high risk cohort. Lung Cancer. 2001;32(3):227–36.
26.
MahadeviaPJFleisherLAFrickKDEngJGoodmanSNPoweNR. Lung cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 2003;289(3):313–22.
27.
Van BallegooijenMHabbemaJDFBoerRZauberABrownML. Report to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of fecal occult blood tests with different test characteristics in the context of annual screening in the Medicare population. August2003. Accessed from: http://www.cms.gov/mcd/viewtechassess.asp?where=search&tid=20
28.
Lansdorp-VogelaarIKuntzKMKnudsenABWilschutJAZauberAGvanBM. Stool DNA testing to screen for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(6):368–77.
29.
KnudsenABLansdorp-VogelaarIRutterCM. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomographic colonography screening for colorectal cancer in the Medicare population. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(16):1238–52.
30.
ZauberAGLansdorp-VogelaarIKnudsenABWilschutJvanBMKuntzKM. 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.
31.
MandelblattJSCroninKABaileyS. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):738–47.
32.
LevyDTMabryPLGrahamALOrleansCTAbramsDB. Reaching Healthy People 2010 by 2013: a SimSmoke simulation. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(3, Suppl):S373–81.
33.
VogelaarIVan BallegooijenMSchragD. How much can current interventions reduce colorectal cancer mortality in the U.S.? Mortality projections for scenarios of risk-factor modification, screening, and treatment. Cancer. 2006;107(7):1624–33.
34.
NeumannPJClaxtonKWeinsteinMC. The FDA’s regulation of health economic information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2000;19(5):129–37.
35.
EddyDM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice: applying cost-effectiveness analysis. The inside story. JAMA. 1992;268(18):2575–82.
36.
GoldieSJ. Public health policy and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2003;(31):102–10.
37.
BransonB. Current HIV epidemiology and revised recommendations for HIV testing in health-care settings. J Med Virol. 2007;79(Suppl 1):S6–10.
38.
WalenskyRPWeinsteinMCKimmelAD. Routine human immunodeficiency virus testing: an economic evaluation of current guidelines. Am J Med. 2005;118(3):292–300.
39.
SaslowDCastlePECoxJT. American Cancer Society Guideline for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine use to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(1):7–28.
40.
Fallout over PSA guidelines continues. Cancer Lett. 2012;38(29): 1–8.
41.
When evidence collides with anecdote, politics, and emotion: breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(8):531–2.
42.
BerlinLHallFM. More mammography muddle: emotions, politics, science, costs, and polarization. Radiology. 2010;255(2):311–6.
43.
HendrickREHelvieMA. United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):W112–6.
44.
MandelblattJCroninK. Response to Hendrick and Helvie by the Cancer Intervention Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Working Group. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:W792.
45.
SchlessingerLEddyDM. Archimedes: a new model for simulating health care systems—the mathematical formulation. J Biomed Inform. 2002;35(1):37–50.
46.
112th US Congress, 2nd session, FY13 budget, House Committee on Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013. Available from: http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-112hr-sc-ap-fy13-laborhhsed.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2012.
47.
MorriseyJHassmiller-LichKAnhang-PriceRMandelblattJ. Computational modeling and multilevel cancer interventions. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;44:55–66.
