Use of expert knowledge in evaluating costs and benefits of alternative service provisions: A case study

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 350-357

  Garthwaite, Paul H ^a   Chilcott, James B ^b   Jenkinson, David J ^c   Tappenden, Paul ^d  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Colorectal cancer; Elicitation; Expert opinion; Probability assessment; Subjective probability

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; GRAPHIC METHODS; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; PROBABILITY;

(R ,S ,S) POLICY; CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY; CASE STUDIES; COVARIATES; EMPIRICAL EVIDENCES; ENGLAND; EXPERT JUDGMENT; EXPERT KNOWLEDGE; EXPERT OPINION; GOOD PRACTICE; INDIVIDUAL (PSS 544-7); INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS; NEW METHODS; PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE; REAL PROBLEMS; SERVICE PROVISIONING; SIMULATION RESULTS; SPECIALIZED SOFTWARE; STATISTICAL QUANTITIES;

PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS;

ARTICLE; BARIUM ENEMA; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CASE STUDY; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EXPERT SYSTEM; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; UNITED KINGDOM;

COLONIC NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CRITICAL PATHWAYS; ENGLAND; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE;

EID: 46749121848     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026646230808046X     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Berbaum KS, Dorfman DD, Franken EA Jr, Caldwell RT. An empirical comparison of discrete ratings and subjective probability ratings. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:756-763.
2. Christiansen F, Nilsson T, Mare K, Carlson A. Adding a visual linear scale probability to the PIOPED probability of pulmonary embolism. Acta Radiol. 1997;38:458-463.
3. Department of Health. The NHS cancer plan: A plan for investment, a plan for change. London: UK National Health Service; 2000.
4. Garthwaite PH, Al-Awadhi SA. Quantifying opinion about a logistic regression using interactive graphics. Technical report 06/07. Milton Keynes, UK: Department of Statistics, Open University; 2006.
5. Harmanec D, Leong TY, Sundaresh S, et al. Decision analytic approach to severe head injury management. Proceedings of the 1999 AMIA Annual Symposium. Washington, DC. 1999:271-275.
6. O'Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T. Uncertain judgements: Eliciting experts' probabilities. Chichester: John Wiley; 2006.
7. Sostman HD, Coleman RE, DeLong DM, Newman GE, Paine S. Evaluation of revised criteria for ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. Radiology. 1994;193:103-107.
8. Tan SB, Chung YF, Tai BC, Cheung YB, Machin D. Elicitation of prior distributions for a phase III randomized controlled trial of adjuvant therapy with surgery for heptatocellular carcinoma. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:110-121.
9. Trueman P, Lowson K, Bending M, Ganderton M, Chaplin S, Wright D, Duffy S, Saxby R, Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Pilgim H, Shorthouse A, Tappenden J. Bowel cancer services: Costs and benefits. Final Report to the Department of Health 2007. http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/sections/heds/modelling/ colorectal-cancers.html. Accessed 7 January 2008.
10. Van Der Gaag LC, Renooij S, Witteman CL, Aleman BM, Taal BG. Probabilities for a probabilistic network: A case study in oesophageal cancer. Artif Intell Med. 2002;25:123-148.