Literature DB >> 14508868

Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation.

Jonathan Karnon1.   

Abstract

Markov models have traditionally been used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of competing health care technologies that require the description of patient pathways over extended time horizons. Discrete event simulation (DES) is a more flexible, but more complicated decision modelling technique, that can also be used to model extended time horizons. Through the application of a Markov process and a DES model to an economic evaluation comparing alternative adjuvant therapies for early breast cancer, this paper compares the respective processes and outputs of these alternative modelling techniques. DES displays increased flexibility in two broad areas, though the outputs from the two modelling techniques were similar. These results indicate that the use of DES may be beneficial only when the available data demonstrates particular characteristics. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14508868     DOI: 10.1002/hec.770

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  37 in total

1.  A proposed model for economic evaluations of major depressive disorder.

Authors:  Hossein Haji Ali Afzali; Jonathan Karnon; Jodi Gray
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-06-02

2.  Population- versus cohort-based modelling approaches.

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

3.  An empirical comparison of Markov cohort modeling and discrete event simulation in a capacity-constrained health care setting.

Authors:  L B Standfield; T A Comans; P A Scuffham
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-12-29

4.  Cost effectiveness of quetiapine in patients with acute bipolar depression and in maintenance treatment after an acute depressive episode.

Authors:  Mattias Ekman; Peter Lindgren; Carolin Miltenburger; Genevieve Meier; Julie C Locklear; Mary Lou Chatterton
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Lifetime effects, costs, and cost effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: results of the NHS pilot studies.

Authors:  Rosa Legood; Alastair Gray; Jane Wolstenholme; Sue Moss
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-01-06

6.  Pharmacoeconomic analyses using discrete event simulation.

Authors:  J Jaime Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Cost-effectiveness analyses of vaccination programmes : a focused review of modelling approaches.

Authors:  Sun-Young Kim; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Declining liver graft quality threatens the future of liver transplantation in the United States.

Authors:  Eric S Orman; Maria E Mayorga; Stephanie B Wheeler; Rachel M Townsley; Hector H Toro-Diaz; Paul H Hayashi; A Sidney Barritt
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.799

9.  Comparing three software tools for implementing markov models for health economic evaluations.

Authors:  Petra Menn; Rolf Holle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Continuous time simulation and discretized models for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Marta O Soares; Luísa Canto E Castro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.