Literature DB >> 26643402

Myths and Misconceptions of Within-Cycle Correction: A Guide for Modelers and Decision Makers.

Elamin H Elbasha1,2, Jagpreet Chhatwal3.   

Abstract

Commonly used decision-analytic models for cost-effectiveness analysis simulate time in discrete steps. Use of discrete-time steps can introduce errors when calculating cumulative outcomes such as costs and quality-adjusted life-years. There are a number of myths or misconceptions concerning how to correct these errors and the need to do so. This tutorial shows that, by neglecting to apply within-cycle (sometimes referred to as half-cycle or continuity) correction methods to the results of discrete-time models, the analyst may arrive at the wrong recommendation regarding the use of a technology. We show that the standard half-cycle correction method results in the same cumulative outcome as the trapezoidal rule and life-table method. However, the trapezoidal rule has the added advantage of applying the correction at each cycle, not just the initial and final cycle. We further show that the Simpson's 1/3 rule is more accurate than the trapezoidal rule. We recommend using the Simpson's 1/3 rule in the base-case analysis and, if needed, showing the results with other methods in the sensitivity analysis. We also demonstrate that both the trapezoidal and Simpson's rules can easily be implemented in commonly used software.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26643402     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0337-0

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


  20 in total

1.  The half-cycle correction: banish rather than explain it.

Authors:  Jan J Barendregt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Theoretical Foundations and Practical Applications of Within-Cycle Correction Methods.

Authors:  Elamin H Elbasha; Jagpreet Chhatwal
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-06-19       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Characterizing Heterogeneity Bias in Cohort-Based Models.

Authors:  Elamin H Elbasha; Jagpreet Chhatwal
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.981

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

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

5.  Continuous time simulation and discretized models for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Marta O Soares; Luísa Canto E Castro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-4.

Authors:  Jonathan Karnon; James Stahl; Alan Brennan; J Jaime Caro; Javier Mar; Jörgen Möller
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Response to "the life table method of half-cycle correction: getting it right".

Authors:  David M J Naimark; Nader N Kabboul; Murray D Krahn
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  The life table method of half cycle correction: getting it right.

Authors:  Jan J Barendregt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2014-01-16       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Causes for concern: is NICE failing to uphold its responsibilities to all NHS patients?

Authors:  Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Stephen Palmer; Anthony J Culyer
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.046

10.  Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7.

Authors:  David M Eddy; William Hollingworth; J Jaime Caro; Joel Tsevat; Kathryn M McDonald; John B Wong
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  6 in total

1.  Individualized Glycemic Control for U.S. Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Neda Laiteerapong; Jennifer M Cooper; M Reza Skandari; Philip M Clarke; Aaron N Winn; Rochelle N Naylor; Elbert S Huang
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Low cumulative disease activity is associated with higher bone mineral density in a majority Latinx and Asian US rheumatoid arthritis cohort.

Authors:  Katherine D Wysham; Jane Shofer; Gabriella Lui; Laura Trupin; James S Andrews; Dennis M Black; Jonathan Graf; Dolores M Shoback; Patricia P Katz
Journal:  Semin Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  Cost-effectiveness of antithrombotic agents for atrial fibrillation in older adults at risk for falls: a mathematical modelling study.

Authors:  Eric K C Wong; Christina Belza; David M J Naimark; Sharon E Straus; Harindra C Wijeysundera
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2020-11-06

4.  Cost-Effectiveness of Lenvatinib Compared with Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Australia.

Authors:  Masnoon Saiyed; Joshua Byrnes; Tushar Srivastava; Paul Scuffham; Martin Downes
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 2.859

5.  Economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial comparing mifepristone and misoprostol with misoprostol alone in the treatment of early pregnancy loss.

Authors:  Charlotte C Hamel; Marcus P L M Snijders; Sjors F P J Coppus; Frank P H A Vandenbussche; Didi D M Braat; Eddy M M Adang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Economic evaluation of population-based type 2 diabetes mellitus screening at different healthcare settings in Vietnam.

Authors:  Phung Lam Toi; Olivia Wu; Montarat Thavorncharoensap; Varalak Srinonprasert; Thunyarat Anothaisintawee; Ammarin Thakkinstian; Nguyen Khanh Phuong; Usa Chaikledkaew
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.