Andrew R Willan1, Ron Goeree, Kathy Boutis. 1. Program in Child Health Evaluative Sciences, SickKids Research Institute, 555 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada. andy@andywillan.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The results of two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrate the clinical effectiveness of alternatives to casting for certain ankle and wrist fractures. We illustrate the use of value of information (VOI) methods for evaluating the evidence provided by these studies with respect to decision making. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using cost-effectiveness data from these studies, the expected value of sample information (EVSI) of a future RCT can be determined. If the EVSI exceeds the cost of the future trial for any sample size, then the current evidence is considered insufficient for decision making and a future trial is considered worthwhile. If, on the other hand, there is no sample size for which the EVSI exceeds the cost, then the evidence is considered sufficient, and no future trial is required. RESULTS: We found that the evidence from the ankle study was insufficient to support the adoption of the removable device and determined the optimal sample size for a future trial. Conversely, the evidence from the wrist study was sufficient to support the adoption of the removable device. CONCLUSIONS: VOI methods provide a decision-analytic alternative to the standard hypothesis testing approach for assessing the evidence provided by cost-effectiveness studies and for determining sample sizes for RCTs.
OBJECTIVE: The results of two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrate the clinical effectiveness of alternatives to casting for certain ankle and wrist fractures. We illustrate the use of value of information (VOI) methods for evaluating the evidence provided by these studies with respect to decision making. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using cost-effectiveness data from these studies, the expected value of sample information (EVSI) of a future RCT can be determined. If the EVSI exceeds the cost of the future trial for any sample size, then the current evidence is considered insufficient for decision making and a future trial is considered worthwhile. If, on the other hand, there is no sample size for which the EVSI exceeds the cost, then the evidence is considered sufficient, and no future trial is required. RESULTS: We found that the evidence from the ankle study was insufficient to support the adoption of the removable device and determined the optimal sample size for a future trial. Conversely, the evidence from the wrist study was sufficient to support the adoption of the removable device. CONCLUSIONS: VOI methods provide a decision-analytic alternative to the standard hypothesis testing approach for assessing the evidence provided by cost-effectiveness studies and for determining sample sizes for RCTs.
Authors: Cynthia I Grossman; Anna Laura Ross; Judith D Auerbach; Jintanat Ananworanich; Karine Dubé; Joseph D Tucker; Veronica Noseda; Cristina Possas; Dianne M Rausch Journal: Trends Microbiol Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 17.079
Authors: Aileen R Neilson; Hanne Bruhn; Christine M Bond; Alison M Elliott; Blair H Smith; Philip C Hannaford; Richard Holland; Amanda J Lee; Margaret Watson; David Wright; Paul McNamee Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kenneth A Freedberg; Cristina Possas; Steven Deeks; Anna Laura Ross; Katherine L Rosettie; Michele Di Mascio; Chris Collins; Rochelle P Walensky; Yazdan Yazdanpanah Journal: J Virus Erad Date: 2015-09-27
Authors: Lisa P Spees; Andrea C Des Marais; Stephanie B Wheeler; Michael G Hudgens; Sarah Doughty; Noel T Brewer; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Trials Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 2.279