Literature DB >> 20629473

The value of value of information: best informing research design and prioritization using current methods.

Simon Eckermann1, Jon Karnon, Andrew R Willan.   

Abstract

Value of information (VOI) methods have been proposed as a systematic approach to inform optimal research design and prioritization. Four related questions arise that VOI methods could address. (i) Is further research for a health technology assessment (HTA) potentially worthwhile? (ii) Is the cost of a given research design less than its expected value? (iii) What is the optimal research design for an HTA? (iv) How can research funding be best prioritized across alternative HTAs? Following Occam's razor, we consider the usefulness of VOI methods in informing questions 1-4 relative to their simplicity of use. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) with current information, while simple to calculate, is shown to provide neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to address question 1, given that what EVPI needs to exceed varies with the cost of research design, which can vary from very large down to negligible. Hence, for any given HTA, EVPI does not discriminate, as it can be large and further research not worthwhile or small and further research worthwhile. In contrast, each of questions 1-4 are shown to be fully addressed (necessary and sufficient) where VOI methods are applied to maximize expected value of sample information (EVSI) minus expected costs across designs. In comparing complexity in use of VOI methods, applying the central limit theorem (CLT) simplifies analysis to enable easy estimation of EVSI and optimal overall research design, and has been shown to outperform bootstrapping, particularly with small samples. Consequently, VOI methods applying the CLT to inform optimal overall research design satisfy Occam's razor in both improving decision making and reducing complexity. Furthermore, they enable consideration of relevant decision contexts, including option value and opportunity cost of delay, time, imperfect implementation and optimal design across jurisdictions. More complex VOI methods such as bootstrapping of the expected value of partial EVPI may have potential value in refining overall research design. However, Occam's razor must be seriously considered in application of these VOI methods, given their increased complexity and current limitations in informing decision making, with restriction to EVPI rather than EVSI and not allowing for important decision-making contexts. Initial use of CLT methods to focus these more complex partial VOI methods towards where they may be useful in refining optimal overall trial design is suggested. Integrating CLT methods with such partial VOI methods to allow estimation of partial EVSI is suggested in future research to add value to the current VOI toolkit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20629473     DOI: 10.2165/11537370-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  14 in total

1.  The value of information and optimal clinical trial design.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan; Eleanor M Pinto
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Expected value of information and decision making in HTA.

Authors:  Simon Eckermann; Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Clinical decision making and the expected value of information.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan; Simon Eckermann
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Determining optimal sample sizes for multi-stage randomized clinical trials using value of information methods.

Authors:  Andrew Willan; Matthew Kowgier
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  The option value of delay in health technology assessment.

Authors:  Simon Eckermann; Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008-05-13       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared.

Authors:  Richard M Nixon; David Wonderling; Richard D Grieve
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.046

8.  Time and expected value of sample information wait for no patient.

Authors:  Simon Eckermann; Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007-12-17       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 9.  Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience.

Authors:  Karl P Claxton; Mark J Sculpher
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling.

Authors:  A E Ades; G Lu; K Claxton
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  31 in total

1.  Value-of-information analysis to reduce decision uncertainty associated with the choice of thromboprophylaxis after total hip replacement in the Irish healthcare setting.

Authors:  Laura McCullagh; Cathal Walsh; Michael Barry
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Modeling the cost-effectiveness of strategies for treating esophageal adenocarcinoma and high-grade dysplasia.

Authors:  Louisa G Gordon; Nicholas G Hirst; George C Mayne; David I Watson; Timothy Bright; Wang Cai; Andrew P Barbour; Bernard M Smithers; David C Whiteman; Simon Eckermann
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Value of information and pricing new healthcare interventions.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan; Simon Eckermann
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  "Time Traveling Is Just Too Dangerous" but Some Methods Are Worth Revisiting: The Advantages of Expected Loss Curves Over Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves and Frontier.

Authors:  Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Eva A Enns; Karen M Kuntz; Tzeyu L Michaud; Hawre Jalal
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Presenting evidence and summary measures to best inform societal decisions when comparing multiple strategies.

Authors:  Simon Eckermann; Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.981

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

Review 7.  Optimal global value of information trials: better aligning manufacturer and decision maker interests and enabling feasible risk sharing.

Authors:  Simon Eckermann; Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Adjuvant HPV vaccination for anal cancer prevention in HIV-positive men who have sex with men: The time is now.

Authors:  Ashish A Deshmukh; Scott B Cantor; Elisabeth Fenwick; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Alan G Nyitray; Elizabeth A Stier; Stephen E Goldstone; Timothy Wilkin; Jagpreet Chhatwal
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2017-08-12       Impact factor: 3.641

9.  Can the real opportunity cost stand up: displaced services, the straw man outside the room.

Authors:  Simon Eckermann; Brita Pekarsky
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Is a comparative clinical trial for breast cancer tumor markers to monitor disease recurrence warranted? A value of information analysis.

Authors:  Rahber Thariani; Norah Lynn Henry; Scott D Ramsey; David K Blough; Bill Barlow; Julie R Gralow; David L Veenstra
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.744

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.