| Summary: | **Introduction:** Economic models and computer simulation models have been used for assessing short-term cost-effectiveness of interventions and modelling long-term outcomes and costs. Several guidelines and checklists have been published to improve the methods and reporting. This article presents an overview of published diabetes models with a focus on how well the models are described in relation to the considerations described by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines.
**Methods:** Relevant electronic databases and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines were searched in December 2012. Studies were included in the review if they estimated lifetime outcomes for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Only unique models, and only the original papers were included in the review. If additional information was reported in subsequent or paired articles, then additional citations were included. References and forward citations of relevant articles, including the previous systematic reviews were searched using a similar method to pearl growing. Four principal areas were included in the ADA guidance reporting for models: transparency, validation, uncertainty, and diabetes specific criteria.
**Results:** A total of 19 models were included. Twelve models investigated type 2 diabetes, two developed type 1 models, two created separate models for type 1 and type 2, and three developed joint type 1 and type 2 models. Most models were developed in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe or Canada. Later models use data or methods from earlier models for development or validation. There are four main types of models: Markov-based cohort, Markov-based microsimulations, discrete-time microsimulations, and continuous time differential equations. All models were long-term diabetes models incorporating a wide range of compilations from various organ systems. In early diabetes modelling, before the ADA guidelines were published, most models did not include descriptions of all the diabetes specific components of the ADA guidelines but this improved significantly by 2004.
**Conclusion:** A clear, descriptive short summary of the model was often lacking. Descriptions of model validation and uncertainty were the most poorly reported of the four main areas, but there exist conferences focussing specifically on the issue of validation. Interdependence between the complications was the least well incorporated or reported of the diabetes-specific criterion.
|
|---|
