This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kuntz, K. M. Articles by Goldie, S. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kuntz, K. M. Articles by Goldie, S. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Assessing the Sensitivity of Decision-Analytic Results to Unobserved Markers of Risk: Defining the Effects of Heterogeneity Bias

Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

Sue J. Goldie, MD, MPH

Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

An important assumption made when constructing a Markov model is that all persons residing in a health state are identical. Failure to adjust for population heterogeneity caused by unobserved variables can therefore cause bias in model results. The authors used a simple model to evaluate the potential impact of heterogeneity bias, defined as the percentage change in the life expectancy gain with an intervention predicted by a model that does not adjust for heterogeneity (unadjusted model) compared to one that does (adjusted model). The life expectancy gains were consistently greater in the unadjusted model compared to the adjusted model (positive bias). For an annual probability of developing disease of 1%, the heterogeneity bias exceeded 50% when the relative risk of disease with the heterogeneity factor versus without the factor was greater than 15 and the prevalence of the heterogeneity factor was between 5% and 25%. When constructing decision-analytic models, analysts need to be cognizant of unobserved factors that introduce heterogeneity into the cohort. This analysis provides a general framework to determine when issues of heterogeneity may be important.

Key Words: heterogeneity • Markov model • decision analysis

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 22, No. 3, 218-227 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0202200310


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. G. K. Bentley, M. C. Weinstein, and K. M. Kuntz Effects of Categorizing Continuous Variables in Decision-Analytic Models Med Decis Making, September 1, 2009; 29(5): 549 - 556. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Koffijberg, G. Rinkel, and E. Buskens Do Intraindividual Variation in Disease Progression and the Ensuing Tight Window of Opportunity Affect Estimation of Screening Benefits? Med Decis Making, January 1, 2009; 29(1): 82 - 90. [Abstract] [PDF]

				U. Siebert, G. Sroczynski, P. Hillemanns, J. Engel, R. Stabenow, C. Stegmaier, K. Voigt, B. Gibis, D. Holzel, and S. J. Goldie The German Cervical Cancer Screening Model: development and validation of a decision-analytic model for cervical cancer screening in Germany Eur J Public Health, April 1, 2006; 16(2): 185 - 192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. L. Nijhuis, T. Stijnen, A. Peeters, J. C.M. Witteman, A. Hofman, and M. G. M. Hunink Apparent and Internal Validity of a Monte Carlo-Markov Model for Cardiovascular Disease in a Cohort Follow-up Study Med Decis Making, March 1, 2006; 26(2): 134 - 144. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Dewilde and R. Anderson The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Programs Using Single and Multiple Birth Cohort Simulations: A Comparison Using a Model of Cervical Cancer Med Decis Making, October 1, 2004; 24(5): 486 - 492. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. W. Steyerberg and M. J. C. Eijkemans Heterogeneity Bias: The Difference between Adjusted and Unadjusted Effects Med Decis Making, January 1, 2004; 24(1): 102 - 104. [PDF]

				G. S. Zaric The Impact of Ignoring Population Heterogeneity when Markov Models are Used in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Med Decis Making, September 1, 2003; 23(5): 379 - 386. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. J. Goldie Chapter 15: Public Health Policy and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, June 1, 2003; 2003(31): 102 - 110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. J. Goldie and K. M. Kuntz A Potential Error in Evaluating Cancer Screening: A Comparison of 2 Approaches for Modeling Underlying Disease Progression Med Decis Making, May 1, 2003; 23(3): 232 - 241. [Abstract] [PDF]