Literature DB >> 21142278

Calibrating models in economic evaluation: a comparison of alternative measures of goodness of fit, parameter search strategies and convergence criteria.

Jonathan Karnon1, Tazio Vanni.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The importance of assessing the accuracy of health economic decision models is widely recognized. Many applied decision models (implicitly) assume that the process of identifying relevant values for a model's input parameters is sufficient to prove the model's accuracy. The selection of infeasible combinations of input parameter values is most likely in the context of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), where parameter values are drawn from independently specified probability distributions for each model parameter. Model calibration involves the identification of input parameter values that produce model output parameters that best predict observed data.
METHODS: An empirical comparison of three key calibration issues is presented: the applied measure of goodness of fit (GOF); the search strategy for selecting sets of input parameter values; and the convergence criteria for determining acceptable GOF. The comparisons are presented in the context of probabilistic calibration, a widely applicable approach to calibration that can be easily integrated with PSA. The appendix provides a user's guide to probabilistic calibration, with the reader invited to download the Microsoft® Excel-based model reported in this article.
RESULTS: The calibrated models consistently provided higher mean estimates of the models' output parameter, illustrating the potential gain in accuracy derived from calibrating decision models. Model uncertainty was also reduced. The chi-squared GOF measure differentiated between the accuracy of different parameter sets to a far greater degree than the likelihood GOF measure. The guided search strategy produced higher mean estimates of the models' output parameter, as well as a narrower range of predicted output values, which may reflect greater precision in the identification of candidate parameter sets or more limited coverage of the parameter space. The broader convergence threshold resulted in lower mean estimates of the models' output, and slightly wider ranges, which were closer to the outputs associated with the non-calibrated approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Probabilistic calibration provides a broadly applicable method that will improve the relevance of health economic decision models, and simultaneously reduce model uncertainty. The analyses reported in this paper inform the more efficient and accurate application of calibration methods for health economic decision models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21142278     DOI: 10.2165/11584610-000000000-00000

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment.

Authors:  Z Philips; L Ginnelly; M Sculpher; K Claxton; S Golder; R Riemsma; N Woolacoot; J Glanville
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Calibrating models in economic evaluation: a seven-step approach.

Authors:  Tazio Vanni; Jonathan Karnon; Jason Madan; Richard G White; W John Edmunds; Anna M Foss; Rosa Legood
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: a review of cost considerations and cost effectiveness.

Authors:  Jonathan Karnon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  A hybrid cohort individual sampling natural history model of age-related macular degeneration: assessing the cost-effectiveness of screening using probabilistic calibration.

Authors:  Jonathan Karnon; Carolyn Czoski-Murray; Kevin J Smith; Christopher Brand
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-01-06       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treatment for breast cancer.

Authors:  A Howell; J Cuzick; M Baum; A Buzdar; M Dowsett; J F Forbes; G Hoctin-Boes; J Houghton; G Y Locker; J S Tobias
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Jan 1-7       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer.

Authors:  Beat Thürlimann; Aparna Keshaviah; Alan S Coates; Henning Mouridsen; Louis Mauriac; John F Forbes; Robert Paridaens; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Richard D Gelber; Manuela Rabaglio; Ian Smith; Andrew Wardley; Andrew Wardly; Karen N Price; Aron Goldhirsch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-12-29       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programmes for amblyopia and strabismus in children up to the age of 4-5 years: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  J Carlton; J Karnon; C Czoski-Murray; K J Smith; J Marr
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.014

8.  Multiparameter calibration of a natural history model of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Karen M Kuntz; Natasha K Stout; Salaheddin Mahmud; Luisa L Villa; Eduardo L Franco; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  Cost-utility analysis of screening high-risk groups for anal cancer.

Authors:  Jonathan Karnon; Roy Jones; Carolyn Czoski-Murray; Kevin J Smith
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 2.341

10.  Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision-making.

Authors:  A E Ades; Nicky J Welton; Deborah Caldwell; Malcolm Price; Aicha Goubar; Guobing Lu
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2008-10
View more
  18 in total

1.  Calibrating models in economic evaluation: a seven-step approach.

Authors:  Tazio Vanni; Jonathan Karnon; Jason Madan; Richard G White; W John Edmunds; Anna M Foss; Rosa Legood
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Calibration of complex models through Bayesian evidence synthesis: a demonstration and tutorial.

Authors:  Christopher H Jackson; Mark Jit; Linda D Sharples; Daniela De Angelis
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Performance of a mathematical model to forecast lives saved from HIV treatment expansion in resource-limited settings.

Authors:  April D Kimmel; Daniel W Fitzgerald; Jean W Pape; Bruce R Schackman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-10-20       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 4.  Exploring structural uncertainty in model-based economic evaluations.

Authors:  Hossein Haji Ali Afzali; Jonathan Karnon
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Overview of pharmacoeconomic modelling methods.

Authors:  Zanfina Ademi; Hansoo Kim; Ella Zomer; Christopher M Reid; Bruce Hollingsworth; Danny Liew
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects in Ontario, Canada: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Amit Mukerji; Amy Shafey; Amish Jain; Eyal Cohen; Prakesh S Shah; Beate Sander; Vibhuti Shah
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2020-01-06

7.  Point of care Xpert MTB/RIF versus smear microscopy for tuberculosis diagnosis in southern African primary care clinics: a multicentre economic evaluation.

Authors:  Anil Pooran; Grant Theron; Lynn Zijenah; Duncan Chanda; Petra Clowes; Lawrence Mwenge; Farirai Mutenherwa; Paul Lecesse; John Metcalfe; Hojoon Sohn; Michael Hoelscher; Alex Pym; Jonny Peter; David Dowdy; Keertan Dheda
Journal:  Lancet Glob Health       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 26.763

Review 8.  A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders.

Authors:  Karl Johnson; Katherine W Saylor; Isabella Guynn; Karen Hicklin; Jonathan S Berg; Kristen Hassmiller Lich
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Nonidentifiability in Model Calibration and Implications for Medical Decision Making.

Authors:  Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Richard F MacLehose; Yadira Peralta; Karen M Kuntz; Eva A Enns
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Home videophones improve direct observation in tuberculosis treatment: a mixed methods evaluation.

Authors:  Victoria A Wade; Jonathan Karnon; Jaklin A Eliott; Janet E Hiller
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.