Literature DB >> 20825626

Discrete event simulation: the preferred technique for health economic evaluations?

Jaime J Caro1, Jörgen Möller, Denis Getsios.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To argue that discrete event simulation should be preferred to cohort Markov models for economic evaluations in health care.
METHODS: The basis for the modeling techniques is reviewed. For many health-care decisions, existing data are insufficient to fully inform them, necessitating the use of modeling to estimate the consequences that are relevant to decision-makers. These models must reflect what is known about the problem at a level of detail sufficient to inform the questions. Oversimplification will result in estimates that are not only inaccurate, but potentially misleading.
RESULTS: Markov cohort models, though currently popular, have so many limitations and inherent assumptions that they are inadequate to inform most health-care decisions. An event-based individual simulation offers an alternative much better suited to the problem. A properly designed discrete event simulation provides more accurate, relevant estimates without being computationally prohibitive. It does require more data and may be a challenge to convey transparently, but these are necessary trade-offs to provide meaningful and valid results.
CONCLUSION: In our opinion, discrete event simulation should be the preferred technique for health economic evaluations today.
© 2010, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20825626     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00775.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  41 in total

1.  No head-to-head trial? simulate the missing arms.

Authors:  J Jaime Caro; K Jack Ishak
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Resource modelling: the missing piece of the HTA jigsaw?

Authors:  Praveen Thokala; Simon Dixon; Beate Jahn
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Economic evaluations with agent-based modelling: an introduction.

Authors:  Jagpreet Chhatwal; Tianhua He
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a review of methods to model disease outcomes and estimate utility.

Authors:  Kevin Marsh; Peng Xu; Panagiotis Orfanos; James Gordon; Ingolf Griebsch
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Modelling technique, structural assumptions, input parameter values: which has the most impact on the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis?

Authors:  Josephine Mauskopf
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Evaluation on the cost-effective threshold of osteoporosis treatment on elderly women in China using discrete event simulation model.

Authors:  W Ni; Y Jiang
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 7.  Discrete Event Simulation-Based Resource Modelling in Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  Syed Salleh; Praveen Thokala; Alan Brennan; Ruby Hughes; Simon Dixon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Cost-effectiveness of enhancing a Quit-and-Win smoking cessation program for college students.

Authors:  Jonah Popp; John A Nyman; Xianghua Luo; Jill Bengtson; Katherine Lust; Lawrence An; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Janet L Thomas
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2018-04-23

9.  Addressing Challenges of Economic Evaluation in Precision Medicine Using Dynamic Simulation Modeling.

Authors:  Deborah A Marshall; Luiza R Grazziotin; Dean A Regier; Sarah Wordsworth; James Buchanan; Kathryn Phillips; Maarten Ijzerman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2020-03-26       Impact factor: 5.725

10.  Expected lifetime numbers, risks, and burden of osteoporotic fractures for 50-year old Chinese women: a discrete event simulation incorporating FRAX.

Authors:  Yawen Jiang; Weiyi Ni
Journal:  J Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 2.626

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.