Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared

Contents:

Author Info

  • Richard M. Nixon

    (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK)

  • David Wonderling

    (National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK)

  • Richard D. Grieve

    (Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) alongside randomised controlled trials commonly estimate incremental net benefits (INB), with 95% confidence intervals, and compute cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and confidence ellipses. Two alternative non-parametric methods for estimating INB are to apply the central limit theorem (CLT) or to use the non-parametric bootstrap method, although it is unclear which method is preferable. This paper describes the statistical rationale underlying each of these methods and illustrates their application with a trial-based CEA. It compares the sampling uncertainty from using either technique in a Monte Carlo simulation. The experiments are repeated varying the sample size and the skewness of costs in the population. The results showed that, even when data were highly skewed, both methods accurately estimated the true standard errors (SEs) when sample sizes were moderate to large (n>50), and also gave good estimates for small data sets with low skewness. However, when sample sizes were relatively small and the data highly skewed, using the CLT rather than the bootstrap led to slightly more accurate SEs. We conclude that while in general using either method is appropriate, the CLT is easier to implement, and provides SEs that are at least as accurate as the bootstrap. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    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://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.1477
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 19 (2010)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 316-333

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:3:p:316-333

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Tambour, Magnus & Zethraeus, Niklas & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "A Note on Confidence Intervals in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 181, Stockholm School of Economics.
    2. Anthony O'Hagan & John W. Stevens, 2001. "A framework for cost-effectiveness analysis from clinical trial data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 303-315.
    3. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787.
    4. Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475.
    5. Nicola J. Cooper & Alex J. Sutton & Keith R. Abrams & David Turner & Allan Wailoo, 2004. "Comprehensive decision analytical modelling in economic evaluation: a Bayesian approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 203-226.
    6. Anthony O'Hagan & John W. Stevens, 2003. "Assessing and comparing costs: how robust are the bootstrap and methods based on asymptotic normality?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 33-49.
    7. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740.
    9. Daniel F. Heitjan, 2000. "Fieller's method and net health benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 327-335.
    10. Andrew Briggs & Richard Nixon & Simon Dixon & Simon Thompson, 2005. "Parametric modelling of cost data: some simulation evidence," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 421-428.
    11. Mark J. Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Mike Drummond & Chris McCabe, 2006. "Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 677-687.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:wly:hlthec:v:19:y:2010:i:3:p:316-333. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    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.