Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: An audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 13, Issue 29, 2009, Pages

  Andronis, L ^a   Barton, P ^a   Bryan, S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANASTROZOLE; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; BEVACIZUMAB; BUPRENORPHINE; CARMUSTINE; CETUXIMAB; CINACALCET; CYCLOSPORIN A; DONEPEZIL; EFALIZUMAB; ETANERCEPT; ETRETIN; EXEMESTANE; FLUOROURACIL; FUMARIC ACID DERIVATIVE; GALANTAMINE; HYDROXYUREA; INSULIN DERIVATIVE; IRINOTECAN; LETROZOLE; MEMANTINE; METHADONE; METHOTREXATE; NALTREXONE; PEGINTERFERON ALPHA; RECOMBINANT HUMAN INSULIN; RIBAVIRIN; RIVASTIGMINE; TAMOXIFEN; UNINDEXED DRUG;

ALZHEIMER DISEASE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COLON RESECTION; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DIABETES MELLITUS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EMBASE; GLIOMA; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEART FAILURE; HEMORRHOID; HEMORRHOIDECTOMY; HEPATITIS C; HUMAN; HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA; HYPERPARATHYROIDISM; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OPIATE ADDICTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSORIASIS; REVIEW; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ADVISORY COMMITTEE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DECISION MAKING; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; DECISION MAKING; GREAT BRITAIN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATE MEDICINE; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 70449372176     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta13290     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S. The use of economic evaluation in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess 2008;12(7). (Pubitemid 351689618)
2. Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ 2007;16:179-193 (Pubitemid 46206612)
3. Williams I, Bryan S. Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:2116-2129
4. Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 1994;13:437-452
5. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008. URL: www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf
6. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, Briggs A, Akehurst R, Buxton M, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005;14:339-347 (Pubitemid 40514748)
7. Briggs A. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluation and presenting the results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. London: Oxford University Press; 2001.
8. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999;3(2):iii-72.
9. Drummond MF, Sculpher M, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddard GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. London: Oxford University Press; 2005.
10. Manning WG, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC. Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
11. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994;3:95-104.
12. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:479-500.
13. Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, Braun P, McNeil BJ. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach. Med Decis Making 1985;5:157-177 (Pubitemid 16130640)
14. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:355-371
15. Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA. Discounting in decision making: the consistency arguement revisited empirically. Health Pol 2008;67:187-194
16. Gravelle H, Smith D. Discounting for health effects in cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2001;10:587-599 (Pubitemid 32998371)
17. Limpscomp J, Weinstein MC, Torrance GW. Time preference. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
18. Sculpher M. the role and estimation of productivity cost in economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. London: Oxford University Press; 2001.
19. Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
20. Critchfield GC, Willard KE. Probabilistic analysis of decision trees using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Decis Making 1986;6:85-92. (Pubitemid 16121227)
21. O'Brien BJ, Drummond MF, Labelle RJ, Willan A. In search of power and significance: issues in the design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies in health care. Med Care 1994;32:150-163
22. Walker D, Fox-Rushby JA. Allowing for uncertainty in economic evaluations: qualitative sensitivity analysis. Health Pol Plann 2001;16:435-443 (Pubitemid 34015403)
23. Soto J. Health economic evaluations using decision analytic modeling: principles and practices - utilization of a checklist to their development and appraisal. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:94-111. (Pubitemid 34408532)
24. NICE. Guide to methods of technology appraisal. 2004. URL: www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/devnicetech/ technologyappraisalprocessguides/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal- reference-n0515.jsp
25. Ades AE, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 2006;15:373-381
26. Felli JC, Hazen GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making 1998;18:95-109.
27. Lord J, Maxwell AN, Asante A. Estimating uncertainty ranges for cost by the bootstrap procedure combined with probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1999;8:323-333 (Pubitemid 29346924)
28. Briggs A. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: statistical representation of parameter uncertainty. Value Health 2005;8:1-2. (Pubitemid 40293635)
29. Bravo VY, Sculpher M. Making decisions under uncertainty: the role of probabilistic decision modelling. Fam Pract 2006;23:391-392
30. Griffin S, Claxton K, Hawkins N, Sculpher M. Probabilistic analysis and computationally expensive models: Necessary and required? Value Health 2006;9:244-252 (Pubitemid 44126779)
31. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994;3:95-104.
32. Sonnenberg FA, Roberts MS, Tsevat J, Wong JB, Barry M, Kent DL. Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Med Care 1994;32(Suppl. 7):JS52-64.
33. Shaw JW, Zachry WM. Application of probabilistic sensitivity analysis in decision analytic modeling. Formulary 2002;37:32-40.
34. Weinstein MC, O'Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in healthcare evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices - Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003;6:9-17. (Pubitemid 36228345)
35. Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004;9:110-118 (Pubitemid 38568540)
36. Parmigiani G, Samsa GP, Ancukiewicz M, Lipscomb J, Hasselblad V, Matchar DB. Assessing uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses: application to a complex decision model. Med Decis Making 1997;17:390-401. (Pubitemid 27444310)
37. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 1996;313:275-283
38. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. A suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:461-477 (Pubitemid 30398805)
39. O'Hagan A, McCabe C, Akehurst R, Brennan A, Briggs A, Claxton K, et al. Incorporation of uncertainty in health economic modelling studies. Pharmacoeconomics 2005;23:529-536 (Pubitemid 40994122)
40. NICE. Efalizumab and etanercept for the treatment of adults with psoriasis. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/FAD-Psoriasis- Psoriasis%20FAD%20for%20consultation%2023%2009%2005%20(final).pdf
41. NICE. Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer (review). URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/colorectal-laparoscopic-FAD.pdf
42. NICE. Peginterferon alfa and ribavirin for the treatment of mild chronic hepatitis C. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/FAD-HepC-pegininterferon.pdf
43. NICE. Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine (review) and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Final-FAD- with-updated-audit-advice-sent-to-C&Cs-250506.pdf
44. NICE. Hormonal therapies for the adjuvant treatment of early oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/ breast-cancer-hormonal-FAD.pdf
45. NICE. Inhaled insulin for the treatment of diabetes (types 1 and 2). URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Inhins3-FAD.pdf
46. NICE. Methadone and buprenorphine for the management of opioid dependence. URL: www.nice.org. uk/nicemedia/pdf/Drug-misuse-methadone-and- buprenorphine-FAD.pdf
47. NICE. Naltrexone for the management of opioid dependence. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Drug-misuse-Naltrexone-FAD.pdf
48. NICE. Cinacalcet for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients with end-stage renal disease on maintenance dialysis therapy. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/FAD-Cinacalcet.pdf
49. NICE. Bevacizumab and cetuximab for metastatic colorectal cancer. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/colorectal-beva-FAD.pdf
50. NICE. Cardiac resynchronisation therapy for the treatment of heart failure. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Heartfailure-FAD.pdf
51. NICE. Carmustine implants and temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed high-grade glioma. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Glioma- carmustine-FAD.pdf
52. NICE. Stapled haemorrhoidopexy for the treatment of haemorrhoids. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/FADStapledHaemorrhoidectomy.pdf
53. NICE. Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. URL: www.nice.org. uk/nicemedia/pdf/FAD- Rheumatoidarthritis.pdf
54. NICE. Ezetimibe for the treatment of primary (heterozygous-familial and non-familial) hypercholesterolaemia. URL: www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/ EzeFADtoPMforappeal.pdf
55. Cook JR, Heyse JF. Use of an angular transformation for ratio estimation in cost-effectiveness analysis. Stat Med 2000;19:2989-3003.
56. Claxton,K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:341-364
57. Groot Koerkampf B, Hunink M, Stijnen T, Hammitt JK, Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC. Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 2007;27:101-111 (Pubitemid 46568910)
58. Fenwick E, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in the dock: case not proven? Med Decis Making 2007;27:93-95 (Pubitemid 46568901)