IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Estimating uncertainty ranges for costs by the bootstrap procedure combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis

  • Joanne Lord

    (Department of Public Health Sciences, St. George's Hospital Medical School, London, UK)

  • Maxwell A. Asante

    (Department of Gastroenterology, St. George's Hospital Medical School, London, UK)

Registered author(s):

    When an economic evaluation incorporates patient-level data, there are two types of uncertainty over the results: uncertainty due to variation in the sampled data, and uncertainty over the choice of modelling parameters and assumptions. Previously statistical methods have been used to estimate the extent of the former, and sensitivity analysis to estimate the extent of the latter. Ideally interval estimates for economic variables should reflect both types of uncertainty. This paper describes a method for combining bootstrapping with probabilistic sensitivity analysis to estimate a total 'uncertainty range' for incremental costs. The approach is illustrated using cost data from a randomized controlled trial of endoscopy for Helicobactor pylori negative young dyspeptic patients. The trial failed to demonstrate any clinical benefit from endoscopy, which was on average £395 more costly. The combined 95% uncertainty range for incremental costs (−£236 to £931) was wider than 95% intervals estimated by either probabilistic sensitivity analysis (£43 to £592) or the non-parametric bootstrap method (−£95 to £667) alone. The method can easily be extended to the calculation of uncertainty ranges for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

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

    Volume (Year): 8 (1999)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 323-333

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:8:y:1999:i:4:p:323-333
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    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. Andrew Briggs & Mark Sculpher, 1995. "Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: A review of published studies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(5), pages 355-371, 09.
    2. Nigel Rice & Andrew Jones, 1997. "Multilevel models and health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(6), pages 561-575.
    3. Andrew H. Briggs & David E. Wonderling & Christopher Z. Mooney, 1997. "Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: A non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(4), pages 327-340.
    4. Tambour, Magnus & Zethraeus, Niklas & Johannesson, Magnus, 1997. "A Note on Confidence Intervals in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 181, Stockholm School of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:8:y:1999:i:4:p:323-333. 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.