Sensitivity Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Studies: From Guidelines to Practice
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is one of the main tools of economic evaluation. Every CEA is based on a number of assumptions, some of which may not be accurate, introducing uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis (SA) formalizes ways to measure and evaluate this uncertainty. Specific sources of uncertainty in CEA have been noted by various researchers. In this work, we consolidate across all sources of uncertainty, discuss the imbalanced attention to SA across different sources, and discuss criteria for conducting and reporting SA to help bridge the gap between guidelines and practice. Guidelines on how to perform SA have been published for many years in response to requests for greater standardization among researchers. Decision makers tasked with reviewing new health technologies also seem to appreciate the additional information conveyed by a robust SA, including the attention to important patient subgroups. Yet, past reviews have shown that there is a substantial gap between the guidelines' suggestions and the quality of SA in the field. Past reviews have also focused on one or two but not all three sources of uncertainty. The objective of our work is to comprehensively review all different sources of uncertainty and provide a concise set of criteria for conducting and presenting SA, stratified by common modelling approaches, including decision analysis and regression models. We first provide an overview of the three sources of uncertainty in a CEA (parameter, structural and methodological), including patient heterogeneity. We then present results from a literature review of the conduct and reporting of SA based on 406 CEA articles published between 2000 and mid-2009. We find that a minority of papers addressed at least two of the three sources of uncertainty, with no change over time. On the other hand, the use of some sophisticated techniques, such as probabilistic SA, has surged over the past 10 years. Lastly, we identify criteria for reporting uncertainty-robust SA and also discuss how to conduct SA and how to improve the reporting of SA for decision makers. We recommend that researchers take a more comprehensive view of uncertainty when planning SA for an economic evaluation.
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.
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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:29:y:2011:i:4:p:297-314. 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.