IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v16y2015i2p219-223.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of small study bias on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and value of information analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Dirk Müller
  • Eleanor Pullenayegum
  • Afschin Gandjour

Abstract

It is well known that small, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have limited validity. When comparing the results of meta-analyses with those of later large trials or with those of large trials removed from the meta-analyses, discrepancies were reported. This paper addresses two issues: (1) how measures of the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness, i.e., cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) are affected by the limited validity of small trials and (2) how to deal with this bias. To this end, the paper adopts a Bayesian approach. Using empirical estimates for the validity of small RCTs compared to larger RCTs, the probability of cost-effectiveness drops by almost 10 %, while the EVPI is three times higher. In conclusion, traditional CEACs and EVPI analyses based on (small) RCTs may need careful appraisal. Ignoring prior evidence on the validity of small-size trials leads to an underestimation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. For future economic analyses, it is important to incorporate aspects of uncertainty which are caused by flawed data on effectiveness . Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Dirk Müller & Eleanor Pullenayegum & Afschin Gandjour, 2015. "Impact of small study bias on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and value of information analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 219-223, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:16:y:2015:i:2:p:219-223
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-014-0607-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10198-014-0607-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-014-0607-3?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony O’Hagan & John Stevens & Jacques Montmartin, 2000. "Inference for the Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve and Cost-Effectiveness Ratio," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 339-349, April.
    2. Hoch, Jeffrey S. & Blume, Jeffrey D., 2008. "Measuring and illustrating statistical evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 476-495, March.
    3. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2010. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – caveats quantified," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(8), pages 955-963, August.
    4. Mickael Löthgren & Niklas Zethraeus, 2000. "Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(7), pages 623-630, October.
    5. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    6. Bas Groot Koerkamp & M.G. Myriam Hunink & Theo Stijnen & James K. Hammitt & Karen M. Kuntz & Milton C. Weinstein, 2007. "Limitations of Acceptability Curves for Presenting Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 101-111, March.
    7. Bas Groot Koerkamp & M. G. Myriam Hunink & Theo Stijnen & Milton C. Weinstein, 2006. "Identifying key parameters in cost‐effectiveness analysis using value of information: a comparison of methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 383-392, April.
    8. Helen Campbell & Sue Tait & Linda Sharples & Noreen Caine & Timothy Gray & Peter Schofield & Martin Buxton, 2005. "Trial-based cost-utility comparison of percutaneous myocardial laser revascularisation and continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 288-297, December.
    9. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2008. "The Value of Implementation and the Value of Information: Combined and Uneven Development," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 21-32, January.
    10. Andrew H. Briggs, 1999. "A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 257-261, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    2. Maiwenn Al, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves Revisited," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 93-100, February.
    3. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    4. Anna Heath & Petros Pechlivanoglou, 2022. "Prioritizing Research in an Era of Personalized Medicine: The Potential Value of Unexplained Heterogeneity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 649-660, July.
    5. WH Rogowski, 2013. "An Economic Theory Of The Fourth Hurdle," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 600-610, May.
    6. Klemen Naveršnik, 2015. "Output correlations in probabilistic models with multiple alternatives," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 133-139, March.
    7. K. Claxton & P. J. Neumannn & S. S. Araki & M. C. Weinstein, "undated". "Bayesian Value-of-Information Analysis: An Application to a Policy Model of Alzheimer's Disease," Discussion Papers 00/39, Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Anna Heath, 2022. "Calculating Expected Value of Sample Information Adjusting for Imperfect Implementation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 626-636, July.
    9. Andrew R. Willan & Simon Eckermann, 2010. "Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(5), pages 549-561, May.
    10. Simon Eckermann & Andrew Willan, 2011. "Presenting Evidence and Summary Measures to Best Inform Societal Decisions When Comparing Multiple Strategies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(7), pages 563-577, July.
    11. Mohan V. Bala & Gary A. Zarkin & Josephine Mauskopf, 2008. "Presenting results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis: the incremental benefit curve," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 435-440, March.
    12. Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & Louise Longworth & Laura Bojke & Susan Griffin & Claire McKenna & Marta Soares & Eldon Spackman & Jihee Youn, 2011. "Uncertainty, evidence and irrecoverable costs: Informing approval, pricing and research decisions for health technologies," Working Papers 069cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    13. Karnon, Jonathan, 2002. "Planning the efficient allocation of research funds: an adapted application of a non-parametric Bayesian value of information analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 329-347, September.
    14. Thomas Delea & Paul Tappenden & Oleg Sofrygin & Dominy Browning & Mayur Amonkar & Jon Karnon & Mel Walker & David Cameron, 2012. "Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who have received prior therapy with trastuzumab," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 589-603, October.
    15. Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2009. "Globally optimal trial design for local decision making," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 203-216, February.
    16. N. J. Welton & A. E. Ades & D. M. Caldwell & T. J. Peters, 2008. "Research prioritization based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case‐study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screening," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(4), pages 807-841, October.
    17. Haitham Tuffaha & Shelley Roberts & Wendy Chaboyer & Louisa Gordon & Paul Scuffham, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Nutritional Support for Preventing Pressure Ulcers in High-risk Patients: Implement Now, Research Later," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 167-179, April.
    18. Hester V Eeren & Saskia J Schawo & Ron H J Scholte & Jan J V Busschbach & Leona Hakkaart, 2015. "Value of Information Analysis Applied to the Economic Evaluation of Interventions Aimed at Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: An Illustration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Lauren E. Cipriano & Thomas A. Weber, 2018. "Population-level intervention and information collection in dynamic healthcare policy," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 604-631, December.
    20. O'Neill, Donal, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Early Childhood Intervention: Evidence from a Randomised Evaluation of a Parenting Programme," IZA Discussion Papers 4518, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost-effectiveness analyses; Value of information; Uncertainty; I1;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:eujhec:v:16:y:2015:i:2:p:219-223. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.