Literature DB >> 28488257

A Comparison of Four Software Programs for Implementing Decision Analytic Cost-Effectiveness Models.

Chase Hollman1, Mike Paulden2,3, Petros Pechlivanoglou4,5,6, Christopher McCabe1.   

Abstract

The volume and technical complexity of both academic and commercial research using decision analytic modelling has increased rapidly over the last two decades. The range of software programs used for their implementation has also increased, but it remains true that a small number of programs account for the vast majority of cost-effectiveness modelling work. We report a comparison of four software programs: TreeAge Pro, Microsoft Excel, R and MATLAB. Our focus is on software commonly used for building Markov models and decision trees to conduct cohort simulations, given their predominance in the published literature around cost-effectiveness modelling. Our comparison uses three qualitative criteria as proposed by Eddy et al.: "transparency and validation", "learning curve" and "capability". In addition, we introduce the quantitative criterion of processing speed. We also consider the cost of each program to academic users and commercial users. We rank the programs based on each of these criteria. We find that, whilst Microsoft Excel and TreeAge Pro are good programs for educational purposes and for producing the types of analyses typically required by health technology assessment agencies, the efficiency and transparency advantages of programming languages such as MATLAB and R become increasingly valuable when more complex analyses are required.

Keywords:  Debug Tool; Health Technology Assessment; Health Technology Assessment Agency; Integrate Development Environment; Markov Tree

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28488257     DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0510-8

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


  7 in total

1.  Comparing three software tools for implementing markov models for health economic evaluations.

Authors:  Petra Menn; Rolf Holle
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  An Overview of R in Health Decision Sciences.

Authors:  Hawre Jalal; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Eline Krijkamp; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Eva Enns; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2017-01-06       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Need for speed: an efficient algorithm for calculation of single-parameter expected value of partial perfect information.

Authors:  Mohsen Sadatsafavi; Nick Bansback; Zafar Zafari; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Carlo Marra
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  Cost-effectiveness of the 21-gene assay for guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer.

Authors:  Mike Paulden; Jacob Franek; Ba' Pham; Philippe L Bedard; Maureen Trudeau; Murray Krahn
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling.

Authors:  A E Ades; G Lu; K Claxton
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  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

7.  Estimating multiparameter partial expected value of perfect information from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample: a nonparametric regression approach.

Authors:  Mark Strong; Jeremy E Oakley; Alan Brennan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 2.583

  7 in total
  8 in total

Review 1.  Decision-analytic modeling as a tool for selecting optimal therapy incorporating hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with hematological malignancy.

Authors:  Shigeo Fuji; Arnon Nagler; Mohamad Mohty; Bipin Savani; Roni Shouval
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 5.483

2.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy for head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma using the Brigham and Women's staging system: a cost analysis.

Authors:  Patrick L Quinn; Jin K Kim; Vishnu Prasath; Neal Panse; Thomas J Knackstedt; Ravi J Chokshi
Journal:  Arch Dermatol Res       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 3.017

3.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab in the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

Authors:  Fan Yang; Yu Fu; Arun Kumar; Mingsheng Chen; Lei Si; Sirikan Rojanasarot
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-08

4.  Methods and quality of disease models incorporating more than two sexually transmitted infections: a protocol for a systematic review of the evidence.

Authors:  Fabian Sailer; Greta Rait; Alice Howe; John Saunders; Rachael Hunter
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Pathways and cost-effectiveness of routine lung cancer inpatient care in rural Anhui, China: a retrospective cohort study protocol.

Authors:  XingRong Shen; MengJie Diao; ManMan Lu; Rui Feng; PanPan Zhang; Tao Jiang; DeBin Wang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Developing Open-Source Models for the US Health System: Practical Experiences and Challenges to Date with the Open-Source Value Project.

Authors:  Jeroen P Jansen; Devin Incerti; Mark T Linthicum
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  One-Way Sensitivity Analysis for Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Conditional Expected Incremental Net Benefit.

Authors:  Christopher McCabe; Mike Paulden; Isaac Awotwe; Andrew Sutton; Peter Hall
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Probabilistic One-Way Sensitivity Analysis with Multiple Comparators: The Conditional Net Benefit Frontier.

Authors:  Christopher McCabe; Giovanni Tramonti; Andrew Sutton; Peter Hall; Mike Paulden
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 4.981

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.