Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Comparing Methods of Data Synthesis: Re-Estimating Parameters of an Existing Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Model

Contents:

Author Info

  • Mark Oppe

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Maiwenn Al

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Maureen Rutten-van Mlken

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Background: Cost-effectiveness models should always be amendable to updating once new data on important model parameters become available. However, several methods of synthesizing data exist and the choice of method may affect the cost-effectiveness estimates. Objectives: To investigate the impact of the different methods of meta-analysis on final estimates of cost effectiveness from a probabilistic Markov model for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: We compared four different methods to synthesize data for the parameters of a cost-effectiveness model for COPD: frequentist and Bayesian fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) meta-analyses. These methods were applied to obtain new transition probabilities between stable disease states and new event probabilities. Results: The four methods resulted in different estimates of probabilities and their standard errors (SE). The effects of using different synthesis techniques were most prominent in the estimation of the SEs. We found up to 9-fold differences in SEs of the exacerbation probabilities and up to almost 3-fold differences in SEs of the transition probabilities. We found that the frequentist FE model produced the lowest SEs, whereas the Bayesian RE model produced the highest for all parameters. The estimates of differences between treatments in total costs, QALYs and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) also varied depending on the synthesis method. The CEAC was 15% lower with a Bayesian RE model than with any of the other models. Conclusions: Health economic modellers should be aware that the choice of synthesis technique can affect resulting model parameters considerably, which can in turn affect estimates of cost effectiveness and the uncertainty around them.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/pdfhandler.00019053-201129030-00007.pdf
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL: http://PharmacoEconomics.adisonline.com/pt/re/pec/fulltext.00019053-201129030-00007.htm
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 29 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 239-250

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:3:p:239-250

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/

    Related research

    Keywords: Bayesian-analysis; Chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease; treatment; Cost-effectiveness; Meta-analysis.;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:3:p:239-250. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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