Literature DB >> 14499052

The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials.

J Chilcott1, A Brennan, A Booth, J Karnon, P Tappenden.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify the role of modelling in planning and prioritising trials. The review focuses on modelling methods used in the construction of disease models and on methods for their analysis and interpretation. DATA SOURCES: Searches were initially developed in MEDLINE and then translated into other databases. REVIEW
METHODS: Systematic reviews of the methodological and case study literature were undertaken. Search strategies focused on the intersection between three domains: modelling, health technology assessment and prioritisation.
RESULTS: The review found that modelling can extend the validity of trials by: generalising from trial populations to specific target groups; generalising to other settings and countries; extrapolating trial outcomes to the longer term; linking intermediate outcome measures to final outcomes; extending analysis to the relevant comparators; adjusting for prognostic factors in trials; and synthesising research results. The review suggested that modelling may offer greatest benefits where the impact of a technology occurs over a long duration, where disease/technology characteristics are not observable, where there are long lead times in research, or for rapidly changing technologies. It was also found that modelling can inform the key parameters for research: sample size, trial duration and population characteristics. One-way, multi-way and threshold sensitivity analysis have been used in informing these aspects but are flawed. The payback approach has been piloted and while there have been weaknesses in its implementation, the approach does have potential. Expected value of information analysis is the only existing methodology that has been applied in practice and can address all these issues. The potential benefit of this methodology is that the value of research is directly related to its impact on technology commissioning decisions, and is demonstrated in real and absolute rather than relative terms; it assesses the technical efficiency of different types of research. Modelling is not a substitute for data collection. However, modelling can identify trial designs of low priority in informing health technology commissioning decisions.
CONCLUSIONS: Good practice in undertaking and reporting economic modelling studies requires further dissemination and support, specifically in sensitivity analyses, model validation and the reporting of assumptions. Case studies of the payback approach using stochastic sensitivity analyses should be developed. Use of overall expected value of perfect information should be encouraged in modelling studies seeking to inform prioritisation and planning of health technology assessments. Research is required to assess if the potential benefits of value of information analysis can be realised in practice; on the definition of an adequate objective function; on methods for analysing computationally expensive models; and on methods for updating prior probability distributions.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14499052     DOI: 10.3310/hta7230

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  12 in total

1.  Economic evaluation of gemcitabine in the treatment of pancreatic cancer in the UK. How important is quality of life?

Authors:  Nick Bansback; Sue Ward; Jon Karnon
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2004-06

Review 2.  Role of pharmacoeconomic analysis in R&D decision making: when, where, how?

Authors:  Paul Miller
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  The development of a decision analytic model of changes in mean deviation in people with glaucoma: the COA model.

Authors:  Steven M Kymes; Dennis L Lambert; Paul P Lee; David C Musch; Carla J Siegfried; Sameer V Kotak; Dustin L Stwalley; Joel Fain; Chris Johnson; Mae O Gordon
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 12.079

4.  The appropriate elicitation of expert opinion in economic models: making expert data fit for purpose.

Authors:  William Sullivan; Katherine Payne
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling.

Authors:  Hawre Jalal; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Karen M Kuntz
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-04-03       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 6.  A systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information in academia and practice.

Authors:  Lotte Steuten; Gijs van de Wetering; Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Valesca Retèl
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Mechanism-based approach to the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic/pharmacoeconomic analysis of rituximab for follicular lymphoma.

Authors:  Joshua Pink; Steven Lane; Dyfrig A Hughes
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  A cost minimisation analysis in teledermatology: model-based approach.

Authors:  Nina Eminović; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Rosanne M Berghout; Astrid H Prins; Patrick Je Bindels; Nicolette F de Keizer
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-08-25       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  The effect of massage therapy and/or exercise therapy on subacute or long-lasting neck pain--the Stockholm neck trial (STONE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Eva Skillgate; Anne-Sylvie Bill; Pierre Côté; Peter Viklund; Anna Peterson; Lena W Holm
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Adaptive management and the value of information: learning via intervention in epidemiology.

Authors:  Katriona Shea; Michael J Tildesley; Michael C Runge; Christopher J Fonnesbeck; Matthew J Ferrari
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 8.029

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.