Literature DB >> 22990087

Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6.

Andrew H Briggs1, Milton C Weinstein2, Elisabeth A L Fenwick1, Jonathan Karnon3, Mark J Sculpher4, A David Paltiel5.   

Abstract

A model's purpose is to inform medical decisions and health care resource allocation. Modelers employ quantitative methods to structure the clinical, epidemiological, and economic evidence base and gain qualitative insight to assist decision makers in making better decisions. From a policy perspective, the value of a model-based analysis lies not simply in its ability to generate a precise point estimate for a specific outcome but also in the systematic examination and responsible reporting of uncertainty surrounding this outcome and the ultimate decision being addressed. Different concepts relating to uncertainty in decision modeling are explored. Stochastic (first-order) uncertainty is distinguished from both parameter (second-order) uncertainty and from heterogeneity, with structural uncertainty relating to the model itself forming another level of uncertainty to consider. The article argues that the estimation of point estimates and uncertainty in parameters is part of a single process and explores the link between parameter uncertainty through to decision uncertainty and the relationship to value-of-information analysis. The article also makes extensive recommendations around the reporting of uncertainty, both in terms of deterministic sensitivity analysis techniques and probabilistic methods. Expected value of perfect information is argued to be the most appropriate presentational technique, alongside cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, for representing decision uncertainty from probabilistic analysis.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22990087     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X12458348

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  213 in total

Review 1.  Good practice guidelines for the use of statistical regression models in economic evaluations.

Authors:  Ben Kearns; Roberta Ara; Allan Wailoo; Andrea Manca; Monica Hernández Alava; Keith Abrams; Mike Campbell
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Exercise, Manual Therapy, and Booster Sessions in Knee Osteoarthritis: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Allyn M Bove; Kenneth J Smith; Christopher G Bise; Julie M Fritz; John D Childs; Gerard P Brennan; J Haxby Abbott; G Kelley Fitzgerald
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2018-01-01

3.  Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Endocrine Therapies in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Japan.

Authors:  Verin Lertjanyakun; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk; Susumu Kunisawa; Yuichi Imanaka
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Optimal healthcare decision making under multiple mathematical models: application in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Dimitris Bertsimas; John Silberholz; Thomas Trikalinos
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2016-09-17

5.  Patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation treated with a percutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  E Hansson; K Hagberg; M Cawson; T H Brodtkorb
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 5.082

6.  Cost Effectiveness of Subsidizing Fruit and Vegetable Purchases Through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Authors:  Sung Eun Choi; Hilary Seligman; Sanjay Basu
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  "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

8.  Massachusetts Health Reform Cost Less and Was More Effective for Uninsured Individuals With Venous Thromboembolism: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Alok Kapoor; Nicholas Shaffer; Amresh Hanchate; Mark Roberts; Kenneth Smith
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Cost-effectiveness of CT angiography and perfusion imaging for delayed cerebral ischemia and vasospasm in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

Authors:  P C Sanelli; A Pandya; A Z Segal; A Gupta; S Hurtado-Rua; J Ivanidze; K Kesavabhotla; D Mir; A I Mushlin; M G M Hunink
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.825

10.  A Need for Change! A Coding Framework for Improving Transparency in Decision Modeling.

Authors:  Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Eline M Krijkamp; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Hawre Jalal; Szu-Yu Zoe Kao; Alan Yang; Eva A Enns
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.