IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i6p651-660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bias Associated with Failing to Incorporate Dependence on Event History in Markov Models

Author

Listed:
  • Tanya G. K. Bentley

    (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, University of California, Los Angeles Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC, Beverly Hills, CA, tbentley@pharllc.com)

  • Karen M. Kuntz

    (Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis)

  • Jeanne S. Ringel

    (from the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA)

Abstract

Purpose. When using state-transition Markov models to simulate risk of recurrent events over time, incorporating dependence on higher numbers of prior episodes can increase model complexity, yet failing to capture this event history may bias model outcomes. This analysis assessed the tradeoffs between model bias and complexity when evaluating risks of recurrent events in Markov models. Methods. The authors developed a generic episode/relapse Markov cohort model, defining bias as the percentage change in events prevented with 2 hypothetical interventions (prevention and treatment) when incorporating 0 to 9 prior episodes in relapse risk versus a model with 10 such episodes. Magnitude and sign of bias were evaluated as a function of event and recovery risks, disease-specific mortality, and risk function. Results. Bias was positive in the base case for a prevention strategy, indicating that failing to fully incorporate dependence on event history overestimated the prevention’s predicted impact. For treatment, the bias was negative, indicating an underestimated benefit. Bias approached zero as the number of tracked prior episodes increased, and the average bias over 10 tracked episodes was greater with the exponential compared with linear functions of relapse risk and with treatment compared with prevention strategies. With linear and exponential risk functions, absolute bias reached 33% and 78%, respectively, in prevention and 52% and 85% in treatment. Conclusion. Failing to incorporate dependence on prior event history in subsequent relapse risk in Markov models can greatly affect model outcomes, overestimating the impact of prevention and treatment strategies by up to 85% and underestimating the impact in some treatment models by up to 20%. When at least 4 prior episodes are incorporated, bias does not exceed 26% in prevention or 11% in treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanya G. K. Bentley & Karen M. Kuntz & Jeanne S. Ringel, 2010. "Bias Associated with Failing to Incorporate Dependence on Event History in Markov Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(6), pages 651-660, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:6:p:651-660
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10363480
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10363480
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10363480?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruth A. Lewis & Dyfrig Hughes & Alex J. Sutton & Clare Wilkinson, 2021. "Quantitative Evidence Synthesis Methods for the Assessment of the Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences for Clinical and Economic Decision Making: A Review and Taxonomy of Simplifying Assumptions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 25-61, January.

    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:30:y:2010:i:6:p:651-660. 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.