Literature DB >> 12058779

Assessing the sensitivity of decision-analytic results to unobserved markers of risk: defining the effects of heterogeneity bias.

Karen M Kuntz1, Sue J Goldie.   

Abstract

An important assumption made when constructing a Markov model is that all persons residing in a health state are identical. Failure to adjust for population heterogeneity caused by unobserved variables can therefore cause bias in model results. The authors used a simple model to evaluate the potential impact of heterogeneity bias, defined as the percentage change in the life expectancy gain with an intervention predicted by a model that does not adjust for heterogeneity (unadjusted model) compared to one that does (adjusted model). The life expectancy gains were consistently greater in the unadjusted model compared to the adjusted model (positive bias). For an annual probability of developing disease of 1%, the heterogeneity bias exceeded 50% when the relative risk of disease with the heterogeneity factor versus without the factor was greater than 15 and the prevalence of the heterogeneity factor was between 5% and 25%. When constructing decision-analytic models, analysts need to be cognizant of unobserved factors that introduce heterogeneity into the cohort. This analysis provides a general framework to determine when issues of heterogeneity may be important.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12058779     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200310

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  12 in total

1.  Population- versus cohort-based modelling approaches.

Authors:  Olivier Ethgen; Baudouin Standaert
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Estimation and validation of a multiattribute model of Alzheimer disease progression.

Authors:  Eric Stallard; Bruce Kinosian; Arthur S Zbrozek; Anatoliy I Yashin; Henry A Glick; Yaakov Stern
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Characterizing Heterogeneity Bias in Cohort-Based Models.

Authors:  Elamin H Elbasha; Jagpreet Chhatwal
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Bias associated with failing to incorporate dependence on event history in Markov models.

Authors:  Tanya G K Bentley; Karen M Kuntz; Jeanne S Ringel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-04-16       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Potential Bias Associated with Modeling the Effectiveness of Healthcare Interventions in Reducing Mortality Using an Overall Hazard Ratio.

Authors:  Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Risk stratification in compartmental epidemic models: Where to draw the line?

Authors:  Sze-Chuan Suen; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Margaret L Brandeau
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 2.405

7.  Pharmacogenomics Bias - Systematic distortion of study results by genetic heterogeneity.

Authors:  Uwe Siebert; Gaby Sroczynski; Vera Zietemann
Journal:  GMS Health Technol Assess       Date:  2008-04-15

8.  Predicting the Effectiveness of Endemic Infectious Disease Control Interventions: The Impact of Mass Action versus Network Model Structure.

Authors:  Giovanni S P Malloy; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Eva A Enns; Margaret L Brandeau
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-04-24       Impact factor: 2.749

9.  Estimating the net value of treating hepatitis C virus using sofosbuvir-velpatasvir in India.

Authors:  David E Bloom; Alexander Khoury; V Srinivasan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The TNF-α -308 Promoter Gene Polymorphism and Chronic HBV Infection.

Authors:  Sirous Tayebi; Ashraf Mohamadkhani
Journal:  Hepat Res Treat       Date:  2012-10-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.