IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i7p861-871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing Economic Models for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Multiple Diagnostic Tests: Methods and Applications

Author

Listed:
  • Xuanqian Xie

    (Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, Toronto, Canada)

  • Sean Tiggelaar

    (Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, Toronto, Canada)

  • Jennifer Guo

    (Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, Toronto, Canada)

  • Myra Wang

    (Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, Toronto, Canada)

  • Stacey Vandersluis

    (Health Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, Toronto, Canada)

  • Wendy J. Ungar

    (Program of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada
    Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

Abstract

Background Clinical pathways with multiple diagnostic tests are complex to model, but problematic and simplistic approaches are often used in economic evaluations. Methods We analyzed statistical methods of handling multiple diagnostic tests and provided guidance on applying these methods in economic modeling. We first introduced a statistical model to quantify the correlations between 2 tests and how those correlations can be incorporated within an economic model. We also presented the general form of conditional dependence among multiple tests. We then introduced net reclassification improvement (NRI), a measure that evaluates the added value of a new risk factor (e.g., biomarker) for risk prediction. We further provided 2 examples to illustrate the application of these methods. Results Our first example illustrated how to model an add-on test to an existing test, in the absence of a perfect reference standard. After accounting for the imperfect nature of both tests and the conditional dependence between tests, the potential health benefits from the additional test were reduced. This led to differential cost-effectiveness results when comparing models using the perfect test and conditional independence assumptions. The second example illustrated how to evaluate the added value of a new risk factor using the NRI measure. Using the new risk classification provides greater precision in risk prediction, and in the example, the strategy using the new risk classification with treatment for selected individuals led to more favorable cost-effectiveness results. Conclusions These innovative methods for handling multiple diagnostic tests have improved the methodology within the field and should be adopted to provide more accurate estimates within cost-effectiveness analyses. Highlights Economic evaluations of multiple diagnostic tests often apply problematic simplistic approaches, such as ignoring conditional dependence between 2 tests or assuming a perfect final test in the diagnostic pathway. We provided guidance on how to apply improved methods for economic modeling. We introduced methods to model conditional dependence between 2 imperfect tests. We used an example to illustrate how assumptions about perfect diagnostic test accuracy and conditional independence between tests affect cost-effectiveness. Compared with the results of the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve, net reclassification improvement has distinct advantages in measuring the added value of a new risk factor for model-based economic evaluation. Economic evaluations that appropriately account for the complexities of diagnostic test pathways can help decision makers ensure efficient use of resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuanqian Xie & Sean Tiggelaar & Jennifer Guo & Myra Wang & Stacey Vandersluis & Wendy J. Ungar, 2022. "Developing Economic Models for Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Multiple Diagnostic Tests: Methods and Applications," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(7), pages 861-871, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:7:p:861-871
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221089268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221089268
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X221089268?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:7:p:861-871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.