Skip to main content

Table 2 Modelling details in CHEERs checklist reported in reviewed studies

From: Application of decision analytical models to diabetes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Model Design

N, % (N = 17 studies)

Model type

 Markov

7, 41%

 Microsimulation

7, 41%

 Agent-based

1, 6%

 Hybrid Markov and decision tree

2, 12%

Parameter uncertainty

 One-way

4, 24%

 Multiway

1, 6%

 PSAa

4, 24%

 Multiple strategies

7, 41%

 Not reported

1, 6%

Intervention(s)

 Fiscal policy

3, 18%

 Screening

5, 29%

 Health system operations

2, 12%

 Patient education

3, 18%

    Not specificb

4, 24%

Validation

 Reported

6, 35%

 Not reported

11, 64%

Economic evaluation

N, % (N = 11 studies)

Outcomes

 Benefits only

4, 24%

 Cost only

2, 12%

 Cost and benefit

11, 65%

Perspectives

 Societal

5, 45%

 Health system/provider

4, 36%

 Both

2, 18%

Time horizonc

  > =25 years

6, 55%

 26–50 years

4, 36%

 Lifetime

1, 9%

Discountc

 Cost only

2, 18%

 Effect only

0, 0%

 Both cost and effect

9, 81%

  1. aPSA Probability sensitivity analysis
  2. bNot specific means that intervention modelled was broad, did not specify activities policymakers could implement, e.g., reduction in obesity prevalence, and increasing dairy food consumption compared to screening for diabetes
  3. camong studies that conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis