Impact of small study bias on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and value of information analyses

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Dirk Müller ; Eleanor Pullenayegum…
• 关键词：Cost ; effectiveness analyses ; Value of information ; Uncertainty ; I1
• 刊名：The European Journal of Health Economics
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：March 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：16
• 期：2
• 页码：219-223
• 全文大小：442 KB
• 参考文献：1. Philips, Z, Ginnelly, L, Sculpher, M, Claxton, K, Golder, S, Riemsma, R, Woolacoot, N, Glanville, J (2004) Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol. Assess. 8: pp. 1-158 CrossRef
  2. Thorlund, K, Imberger, G, Walsh, M, Chu, R, Gluud, C, Wetterslev, J, Guyatt, G, Devereaux, PJ, Thabane, L (2011) The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis: a simulation study. PLoS ONE 6: pp. e254-e291 CrossRef
  3. LeLorier, J, Grégoire, G, Benhaddad, A, Lapierre, J, Derderian, F (1997) Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 337: pp. 536-542 CrossRef
  4. Nüsch, E, Trelle, S, Reichenbach, S, Rutjes, AW, Tschannen, B, Altman, DG, Egger, M, Jüni, P (2010) Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study. Br. Med. J. 341: pp. c3515 CrossRef
  5. Sterne, JA, Gavaghan, D, Egger, M (2000) Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 53: pp. 1119-1129 CrossRef
  6. Rothwell, PM (2005) External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?- Lancet 365: pp. 82-93 CrossRef
  7. Gehr, BT, Weiss, C, Porzsolt, F (2006) The fading of reported effectiveness. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 11: pp. 6-25
  8. Claxton, K, Neumann, PJ, Araki, S, Weinstein, MC (2001) Bayesian value-of-information analysis. An application to a policy model of Alzheimer’s disease. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 17: pp. 38-55 CrossRef
  9. Claxton, K, Ginnelly, L, Sculpher, M, Philips, Z, Palmer, S (2004) A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health technology assessment programme. Health Technol. Assess. 8: pp. 1-103 CrossRef
  10. Groot Koerkamp, B, Myriam Hunink, MG, Stijnen, T, Weinstein, MC (2006) Identifying key parameters in cost-effectiveness analysis using value of information: a comparison of methods. Health Econ. 15: pp. 383-392 CrossRef
  11. Fenwick, E, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M (2008) The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med. Decis. Mak. 28: pp. 21-32 CrossRef
  12. Baio, G, Russo, P (2009) A decision-theoretic framework for the application of cost-effectiveness analysis in regulatory processes. Pharmacoeconomics 27: pp. 645-655 CrossRef
  13. Briggs, AH (1999) A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 8: pp. 257-261 CrossRef
  14. O’Hagan, A, Stevens, JW, Montmartin, J (2000) Inference for the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve and cost-effectiveness ratio. Pharmacoeconomics 17: pp. 339-349 CrossRef
  15. Hoch, JS, Blume, JD (2008) Measuring and illustrating statistical evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Health Econ. 27: pp. 476-495 CrossRef
  16. Claxton, K (1999) The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J. Health Econ. 18: pp. 341-364 <
• 刊物类别：Business and Economics
• 刊物主题：Economics
  Economic Policy
  Public Health
  Public Finance and Economics
  
• 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
• ISSN：1618-7601

文摘

It is well known that small, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have limited validity. When comparing the results of meta-analyses with those of later large trials or with those of large trials removed from the meta-analyses, discrepancies were reported. This paper addresses two issues: (1) how measures of the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness, i.e., cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) are affected by the limited validity of small trials and (2) how to deal with this bias. To this end, the paper adopts a Bayesian approach. Using empirical estimates for the validity of small RCTs compared to larger RCTs, the probability of cost-effectiveness drops by almost 10?%, while the EVPI is three times higher. In conclusion, traditional CEACs and EVPI analyses based on (small) RCTs may need careful appraisal. Ignoring prior evidence on the validity of small-size trials leads to an underestimation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. For future economic analyses, it is important to incorporate aspects of uncertainty which are caused by flawed data on effectiveness .