Independent modeling efforts often yield disparate results that are difficult to reconcile. A comparative modeling approach explores differences between models in a systematic way. In joint collaborations, a set of common population inputs is shared across all models (e.g., dissemination patterns of screening and treatment, mortality from non-cancer causes), and common sets of intermediate and final outputs are developed. Results are then compared across models.
Comparative modeling produces a range of results across models and, when consensus can be reached, greatly enhances the credibility of modeling results by highlighting their reproducibility. When results are disparate, it can help to pinpoint areas where our knowledge base is insufficient and further research is needed. Comparative modeling is a powerful tool that would be impossible without a collaborative effort within the scientific community.
Highlights of comparative modeling results are given in the cancer-specific sections:
- Breast Cancer Comparative Analyses
- Colorectal Cancer Comparative Analyses
- Lung Cancer Comparative Analyses
- Prostate Cancer Comparative Analyses
- Esophageal Cancer Comparative Analyses
CISNET has been cited by the International Society Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force on Good Modeling Practices for its role establishing a forum that enables modelers to compare results and articulate reasons for discrepancies.
Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, Luce BR. ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003 Jan-Feb;6(1):9-17. [Abstract]