Literature DB >> 8563834

Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: a review of published studies.

A Briggs1, M Sculpher.   

Abstract

A structured methodological review of journal articles published in 1992 was undertaken to determine whether recently published economic evaluation studies deal systematically and comprehensively with uncertainty. Ninety three journal articles were identified from a range of searches including a computerised search of the MEDLINE CD-Rom database. Articles were reviewed to determine how they had handled uncertainty in: a) data sources; b) generalisability; c) extrapolation; and d) analytic method. Articles were subsequently assessed to determine how they had represented this uncertainty in terms of the overall results of their analysis. Finally, studies were rated on the basis of their overall performance with respect to dealing systematically and comprehensively with uncertainty. Despite the numerous books and articles devoted to the appropriate methods to be employed by analysts conducting economic evaluation, 22 (24%) studies failed to consider uncertainty at all and 35 (38%) studies employed sensitivity analysis in a manner judged as inadequate. In all, 36 (39%) studies were judged to have given at least an adequate account of uncertainty with 13 (14%) of those judged to have provided a good account of uncertainty. Such disappointing results may reflect a general lack of detail in much of the methods literature concerning how sensitivity analysis should be applied and how results should be presented. Journal editors and readers of economic evaluation articles should acquaint themselves with the methods for handling uncertainty in order that they can critically evaluate the extent to which authors have allowed for uncertainties inherent in their analysis.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8563834     DOI: 10.1002/hec.4730040502

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  17 in total

Review 1.  Reassessing the relevance of pharmacoeconomic analyses in formulary decisions.

Authors:  J A Johnson; E Friesen
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Common errors and controversies in pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Authors:  S Byford; S Palmer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  How often do sensitivity analyses for economic parameters change cost-utility analysis conclusions?

Authors:  Bruce R Schackman; Heather Taffet Gold; Patricia W Stone; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Sensitivity analysis in health economic and pharmacoeconomic studies. An appraisal of the literature.

Authors:  K E Agro; C A Bradley; N Mittmann; M Iskedjian; A L Ilersich; T R Einarson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  A case for the adoption of pharmacoeconomic guidelines in Japan.

Authors:  S Ikeda; N Ikegami; A J Oliver; M Ikeda
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  A review of health care models for coronary heart disease interventions.

Authors:  K Cooper; S C Brailsford; R Davies; J Raftery
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2006-11

Review 7.  Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: review of published studies.

Authors:  J A Barber; S G Thompson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

Review 8.  How to assess an article on economic evaluation.

Authors:  M Sculpher; D Mercey
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.519

9.  Predictive modeling the physician assistant supply: 2010-2025.

Authors:  Roderick S Hooker; James F Cawley; Christine M Everett
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

Review 10.  Sensitivity analysis in cost-effectiveness studies: from guidelines to practice.

Authors:  Rahul Jain; Michael Grabner; Eberechukwu Onukwugha
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.