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 Web of Science 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 Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Karnon, J. Articles by Akehurst, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Karnon, J. Articles by Akehurst, R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Critique and Impact Analysis of Decision Modeling Assumptions

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, j.karnon{at}sheffield.ac.uk

Alan Brennan, MSc

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Ron Akehurst, Hon MFPHM

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Background . Numerous guidelines have been published defining good practice for the conduct of economic evaluations in general and model-based evaluations in particular. The extent to which guidelines are accepted is unknown, and the impact of deviations from good practice is not generally recorded. The authors identified 4 specific issues in applied studies that may affect the accuracy and comparability of different evaluations. Methods. A descriptive analysis of 4 modeling issues (inclusion of incident cases over a model time horizon, appropriate time horizon, parsimonious model structure, and the handling of age-specific subgroups) is presented. A case study model is analyzed to illustrate the quantitative impact of 3 of the issues. Results. In the case study model, alternative specifications of the modeling framework are shown to alter the estimated cost-effectiveness by large percentages. The combined effect of including incident cases and reduced follow-up yielded the highest divergence from the reference case results, by between 20% and 40%, depending on the age group. Reference case results of an age-weighted population were almost 14% different from the middle single age cohort. Discussion. The identified issues are all generalizable to a wide range of treatment areas and are, or should be, addressed by evaluative guidelines. The authors call for the continued development, dissemination, and application of guidelines for the conduct of economic evaluation in general and model-based economic evaluations in particular.

Key Words: Key words: guidelines • models • decision support • cost-effectiveness • antiplatelet drugs. (Med Decis Making 2007;27:491—499)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 27, No. 4, 491-499 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07300606


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Goldman and J.-M. Gaspoz Cost-Effectiveness of Clopidogrel: Seeing through the Smoke Med Decis Making, November 1, 2008; 28(6): 803 - 809. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Griffin, K. Claxton, and M. Sculpher Decision analysis for resource allocation in health care J Health Serv Res Policy, October 1, 2008; 13(suppl_3): 23 - 30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. McCabe Guidance on Good Practice in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling: Is More Needed? Med Decis Making, August 1, 2007; 27(4): 350 - 351. [PDF]