Terry N Flynn1, Tim J Peters. 1. Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. terry.flynn@bristol.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This work has investigated under what conditions cost-effectiveness data from a cluster randomized trial (CRT) are suitable for analysis using a cluster-adjusted nonparametric bootstrap. The bootstrap's main advantages are in dealing with skewed data and its ability to take correlations between costs and effects into account. However, there are known theoretical problems with a commonly used cluster bootstrap procedure, and the practical implications of these require investigation. METHODS: Simulations were used to estimate the coverage of confidence intervals around incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from CRTs using two bootstrap methods. RESULTS: The bootstrap gave excessively narrow confidence intervals, but there was evidence to suggest that, when the number of clusters per treatment arm exceeded 24, it might give acceptable results. The method that resampled individuals as well as clusters did not perform well when cost and effectiveness data were correlated. CONCLUSIONS: If economic data from such trials are to be analyzed adequately, then there is a need for further investigations of more complex bootstrap procedures. Similarly, further research is required on methods such as the net benefit approach.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This work has investigated under what conditions cost-effectiveness data from a cluster randomized trial (CRT) are suitable for analysis using a cluster-adjusted nonparametric bootstrap. The bootstrap's main advantages are in dealing with skewed data and its ability to take correlations between costs and effects into account. However, there are known theoretical problems with a commonly used cluster bootstrap procedure, and the practical implications of these require investigation. METHODS: Simulations were used to estimate the coverage of confidence intervals around incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from CRTs using two bootstrap methods. RESULTS: The bootstrap gave excessively narrow confidence intervals, but there was evidence to suggest that, when the number of clusters per treatment arm exceeded 24, it might give acceptable results. The method that resampled individuals as well as clusters did not perform well when cost and effectiveness data were correlated. CONCLUSIONS: If economic data from such trials are to be analyzed adequately, then there is a need for further investigations of more complex bootstrap procedures. Similarly, further research is required on methods such as the net benefit approach.
Authors: Ana Carbonell-Baeza; Alberto Soriano-Maldonado; Francisco Javier Gallo; María Puerto López del Amo; Pilar Ruiz-Cabello; Ana Andrade; Milkana Borges-Cosic; Antonio Rubén Peces-Rama; Zuzana Spacírová; Inmaculada C Álvarez-Gallardo; Leticia García-Mochón; Víctor Segura-Jiménez; Fernando Estévez-López; Daniel Camiletti-Moirón; Jose Jesús Martín-Martín; Pilar Aranda; Manuel Delgado-Fernández; Virginia A Aparicio Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Mohamed El Alili; Johanna M van Dongen; Keith S Goldfeld; Martijn W Heymans; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Anthony J Avery; Sarah Rodgers; Judith A Cantrill; Sarah Armstrong; Rachel Elliott; Rachel Howard; Denise Kendrick; Caroline J Morris; Scott A Murray; Robin J Prescott; Kathrin Cresswell; Aziz Sheikh Journal: Trials Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jorge Carlos-Vivas; Jorge Pérez-Gómez; Serafín Delgado-Gil; José Carlos Campos-López; Manuel Granado-Sánchez; Jorge Rojo-Ramos; Laura Muñoz-Bermejo; Sabina Barrios-Fernandez; María Mendoza-Muñoz; Angelina Prado-Solano; Miguel Ángel Garcia-Gordillo; José Carmelo Adsuar Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 3.390