Sandjar Djalalov1,2,3, Jaclyn Beca4, Emmanuel M Ewara5, Jeffrey S Hoch6. 1. Westminster International University in Tashkent, 12 Istiqbol St., 100047, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. sandjar.djalalov@yahoo.com. 2. Tashkent Pharmaceutical Institute, 45 Aybek Street, 100015, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. sandjar.djalalov@yahoo.com. 3. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative Toronto General Hospital, Eaton Building, 10th Floor, Room 248, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada. sandjar.djalalov@yahoo.com. 4. Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Janssen Inc., 19 Green Belt Dr., Toronto, ON, M3C 1L9, Canada. 6. Division of Health Policy and Management, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to use Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software to fit parametric survival distributions. We also explain the differences between individual patient data (IPD) and survival data reconstructed in Excel and SAS. METHODS: Three sets of patient data on overall survival were compared using different methods: 'original' IPD, 'reconstructed SAS', and 'reconstructed Excel'. The best-fit distribution was selected using visual observation, supported by linear plots of predicted probabilities, goodness-of-fit coefficients, and the sum of squared error of prediction. Outcomes included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net benefit (INB), incremental cost, and life-years gained over short-term and lifetime horizons. These were compared for different data sets. RESULTS: In this example, log-normal, log-logistic, and Weibull distributions showed best-fit with the visual tests and goodness-of-fit statistics. Weibull and exponential distributions showed significant differences compared with IPD data. Data on short-term (5 years) time horizons produced by different data re-creation methods showed closeness with data reconstructed from SAS. The ICER and INB results were dependent on the time horizon and selected parametric distribution from the model. CONCLUSIONS: Different approaches used in fitting parametric survival distributions yielded predicted probabilities that substantially differed from those using original IPD. Our study highlights the importance of following guidelines for economic evaluations with a systematic approach to parametric survival analysis techniques in order to select best fitting parametric survival distributions.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to use Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software to fit parametric survival distributions. We also explain the differences between individual patient data (IPD) and survival data reconstructed in Excel and SAS. METHODS: Three sets of patient data on overall survival were compared using different methods: 'original' IPD, 'reconstructed SAS', and 'reconstructed Excel'. The best-fit distribution was selected using visual observation, supported by linear plots of predicted probabilities, goodness-of-fit coefficients, and the sum of squared error of prediction. Outcomes included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net benefit (INB), incremental cost, and life-years gained over short-term and lifetime horizons. These were compared for different data sets. RESULTS: In this example, log-normal, log-logistic, and Weibull distributions showed best-fit with the visual tests and goodness-of-fit statistics. Weibull and exponential distributions showed significant differences compared with IPD data. Data on short-term (5 years) time horizons produced by different data re-creation methods showed closeness with data reconstructed from SAS. The ICER and INB results were dependent on the time horizon and selected parametric distribution from the model. CONCLUSIONS: Different approaches used in fitting parametric survival distributions yielded predicted probabilities that substantially differed from those using original IPD. Our study highlights the importance of following guidelines for economic evaluations with a systematic approach to parametric survival analysis techniques in order to select best fitting parametric survival distributions.
Authors: Charlotte Davies; Andrew Briggs; Paula Lorgelly; Göran Garellick; Henrik Malchau Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-03-03 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Linda Lee; Michael Crump; Sara Khor; Jeffrey S Hoch; Jin Luo; Karen Bremner; Murray Krahn; David C Hodgson Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2012-06-05 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Noemi Muszbek; Noemi Kreif; Adriana Valderrama; Agnes Benedict; Jack Ishak; Paul Ross Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Sara Khor; Jaclyn Beca; Murray Krahn; David Hodgson; Linda Lee; Michael Crump; Karen E Bremner; Jin Luo; Muhammad Mamdani; Chaim M Bell; Carol Sawka; Scott Gavura; Terrence Sullivan; Maureen Trudeau; Stuart Peacock; Jeffrey S Hoch Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Meng-Meng Teng; Si-Ying Chen; Bo Yang; Yan Wang; Rui-Ying Han; Meng-Na An; Ya-Lin Dong; Hai-Sheng You Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 4.452