Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Matthias Egger [verfasserIn] Leigh Johnson [verfasserIn] Christian Althaus [verfasserIn] Anna Schöni [verfasserIn] Georgia Salanti [verfasserIn] Nicola Low [verfasserIn] Susan L. Norris [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2018

Schlagwörter:	Methods of Clinical Decision-Making Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: F1000Research - F1000 Research Ltd, 2013, 6(2018)
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:6 ; year:2018

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.12688/f1000research.12367.2

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ044419465

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ044419465
003	DE-627
005	20230502090718.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ044419465
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Matthias Egger \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
264		1	\|c 2018
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’.
650		4	\|a Methods of Clinical Decision-Making
650		4	\|a Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
653		0	\|a Science
653		0	\|a Q
700	0		\|a Leigh Johnson \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Christian Althaus \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Anna Schöni \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Georgia Salanti \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Nicola Low \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Susan L. Norris \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t F1000Research \|d F1000 Research Ltd, 2013 \|g 6(2018) \|w (DE-627)735133581 \|w (DE-600)2699932-8 \|x 20461402 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:6 \|g year:2018
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1584/v2 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2046-1402 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 6 \|j 2018

Indexfelder

author_variant	m e me l j lj c a ca a s as g s gs n l nl s l n sln
matchkey_str	article:20461402:2018----::eeoighgieietmtfralicuevdnermahmtcloelnsu
hierarchy_sort_str	2018
publishDate	2018
allfields	10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ044419465 (DE-599)DOAJ2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Matthias Egger verfasserin aut Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved] 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’. Methods of Clinical Decision-Making Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics Medicine R Science Q Leigh Johnson verfasserin aut Christian Althaus verfasserin aut Anna Schöni verfasserin aut Georgia Salanti verfasserin aut Nicola Low verfasserin aut Susan L. Norris verfasserin aut In F1000Research F1000 Research Ltd, 2013 6(2018) (DE-627)735133581 (DE-600)2699932-8 20461402 nnns volume:6 year:2018 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 kostenfrei https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1584/v2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-1402 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2018
spelling	10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ044419465 (DE-599)DOAJ2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Matthias Egger verfasserin aut Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved] 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’. Methods of Clinical Decision-Making Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics Medicine R Science Q Leigh Johnson verfasserin aut Christian Althaus verfasserin aut Anna Schöni verfasserin aut Georgia Salanti verfasserin aut Nicola Low verfasserin aut Susan L. Norris verfasserin aut In F1000Research F1000 Research Ltd, 2013 6(2018) (DE-627)735133581 (DE-600)2699932-8 20461402 nnns volume:6 year:2018 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 kostenfrei https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1584/v2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-1402 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2018
allfields_unstemmed	10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ044419465 (DE-599)DOAJ2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Matthias Egger verfasserin aut Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved] 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’. Methods of Clinical Decision-Making Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics Medicine R Science Q Leigh Johnson verfasserin aut Christian Althaus verfasserin aut Anna Schöni verfasserin aut Georgia Salanti verfasserin aut Nicola Low verfasserin aut Susan L. Norris verfasserin aut In F1000Research F1000 Research Ltd, 2013 6(2018) (DE-627)735133581 (DE-600)2699932-8 20461402 nnns volume:6 year:2018 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 kostenfrei https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1584/v2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-1402 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2018
allfieldsGer	10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ044419465 (DE-599)DOAJ2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Matthias Egger verfasserin aut Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved] 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’. Methods of Clinical Decision-Making Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics Medicine R Science Q Leigh Johnson verfasserin aut Christian Althaus verfasserin aut Anna Schöni verfasserin aut Georgia Salanti verfasserin aut Nicola Low verfasserin aut Susan L. Norris verfasserin aut In F1000Research F1000 Research Ltd, 2013 6(2018) (DE-627)735133581 (DE-600)2699932-8 20461402 nnns volume:6 year:2018 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 kostenfrei https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1584/v2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-1402 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2018
allfieldsSound	10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ044419465 (DE-599)DOAJ2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Matthias Egger verfasserin aut Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved] 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’. Methods of Clinical Decision-Making Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics Medicine R Science Q Leigh Johnson verfasserin aut Christian Althaus verfasserin aut Anna Schöni verfasserin aut Georgia Salanti verfasserin aut Nicola Low verfasserin aut Susan L. Norris verfasserin aut In F1000Research F1000 Research Ltd, 2013 6(2018) (DE-627)735133581 (DE-600)2699932-8 20461402 nnns volume:6 year:2018 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 kostenfrei https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1584/v2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2046-1402 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 6 2018
language	English
source	In F1000Research 6(2018) volume:6 year:2018
sourceStr	In F1000Research 6(2018) volume:6 year:2018
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Methods of Clinical Decision-Making Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics Medicine R Science Q
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	F1000Research
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Matthias Egger @@aut@@ Leigh Johnson @@aut@@ Christian Althaus @@aut@@ Anna Schöni @@aut@@ Georgia Salanti @@aut@@ Nicola Low @@aut@@ Susan L. Norris @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	735133581
id	DOAJ044419465
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ044419465</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502090718.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.12688/f1000research.12367.2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ044419465</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Matthias Egger</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Methods of Clinical Decision-Making</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Leigh Johnson</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Christian Althaus</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anna Schöni</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Georgia Salanti</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicola Low</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Susan L. Norris</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">F1000Research</subfield><subfield code="d">F1000 Research Ltd, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">6(2018)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)735133581</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2699932-8</subfield><subfield code="x">20461402</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:6</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12367.2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1584/v2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2046-1402</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">6</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Matthias Egger
spellingShingle	Matthias Egger misc Methods of Clinical Decision-Making misc Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
authorStr	Matthias Egger
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)735133581
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20461402
topic_title	Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved] Methods of Clinical Decision-Making Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics
topic	misc Methods of Clinical Decision-Making misc Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q
topic_unstemmed	misc Methods of Clinical Decision-Making misc Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q
topic_browse	misc Methods of Clinical Decision-Making misc Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	F1000Research
hierarchy_parent_id	735133581
hierarchy_top_title	F1000Research
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)735133581 (DE-600)2699932-8
title	Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ044419465 (DE-599)DOAJ2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314
title_full	Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
author_sort	Matthias Egger
journal	F1000Research
journalStr	F1000Research
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2018
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Matthias Egger Leigh Johnson Christian Althaus Anna Schöni Georgia Salanti Nicola Low Susan L. Norris
container_volume	6
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Matthias Egger
doi_str_mv	10.12688/f1000research.12367.2
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	developing who guidelines: time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
title_auth	Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
abstract	In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’.
abstractGer	In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’.
abstract_unstemmed	In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
title_short	Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
url	https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12367.2 https://doaj.org/article/2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314 https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1584/v2 https://doaj.org/toc/2046-1402
remote_bool	true
author2	Leigh Johnson Christian Althaus Anna Schöni Georgia Salanti Nicola Low Susan L. Norris
author2Str	Leigh Johnson Christian Althaus Anna Schöni Georgia Salanti Nicola Low Susan L. Norris
ppnlink	735133581
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.12688/f1000research.12367.2
up_date	2024-07-03T22:55:13.195Z
_version_	1803600331484954626
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ044419465</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502090718.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.12688/f1000research.12367.2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ044419465</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Matthias Egger</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">In recent years, the number of mathematical modelling studies has increased steeply. Many of the questions addressed in these studies are relevant to the development of World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, but modelling studies are rarely formally included as part of the body of evidence. An expert consultation hosted by WHO, a survey of modellers and users of modelling studies, and literature reviews informed the development of recommendations on when and how to incorporate the results of modelling studies into WHO guidelines. In this article, we argue that modelling studies should routinely be considered in the process of developing WHO guidelines, but particularly in the evaluation of public health programmes, long-term effectiveness or comparative effectiveness. There should be a systematic and transparent approach to identifying relevant published models, and to commissioning new models. We believe that the inclusion of evidence from modelling studies into the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process is possible and desirable, with relatively few adaptations. No single “one-size-fits-all” approach is appropriate to assess the quality of modelling studies. The concept of the ‘credibility’ of the model, which takes the conceptualization of the problem, model structure, input data, different dimensions of uncertainty, as well as transparency and validation into account, is more appropriate than ‘risk of bias’.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Methods of Clinical Decision-Making</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Statistical Methodologies & Health Informatics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Leigh Johnson</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Christian Althaus</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anna Schöni</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Georgia Salanti</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicola Low</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Susan L. Norris</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">F1000Research</subfield><subfield code="d">F1000 Research Ltd, 2013</subfield><subfield code="g">6(2018)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)735133581</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2699932-8</subfield><subfield code="x">20461402</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:6</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12367.2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/2bd577efadd34747bf29667fe0ed6314</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1584/v2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2046-1402</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">6</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.401354

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Developing WHO guidelines: Time to formally include evidence from mathematical modelling studies [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?