Use of implicit and explicit bayesian methods in health technology assessment

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 336-342

  Cooper, Nicola J ^a   Spiegelhalter, David ^b   Bujkiewicz, Sylwia ^a   Dequen, Pascale ^a   Sutton, Alex J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian; health technology assessment; mixed treatment comparison; probabilistic sensitivity analysis

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; MIXED TREATMENT COMPARISON; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTHS; PRIOR DISTRIBUTION; PROBABILISTIC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SECONDARY RESEARCHES;

HEALTH;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DECISION TREE; DRUG INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

BAYES THEOREM; GREAT BRITAIN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84880445687     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000354     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Ashby D. Bayesian statistics in medicine: A 25 year review. Stat Med. 2006;25:3589-3631.
2. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: An unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6:217-227.
3. Hunink M, Glasziou P, Siegel J, et al. Decision making in health and medicine: Integrating evidence and values. 1st ed.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press; 2001.
4. Briggs A, SculpherM.An introduction toMarkov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:397-409.
5. Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment:Areview. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1-130.
6. SpiegelhalterDJ, Myles JP, JonesDR, Abrams KR.Methods in health service research: An introduction to Bayesian methods in health technology assessment. BMJ. 1999;319:508-512.
7. Bayes T. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. 1763. MD Comput. 1991;8:157-171.
8. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR,Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation (statistics in practice). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2004.
9. Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton AJ, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1-19.
10. Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:479-500.
11. Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: Implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 1999;8:269-274.
12. Gelman A, Carlin J, Stern J, Rubin D. Bayesian data analysis. NewYork: Chapman and Hall; 1995.
13. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21:2313-2324.
14. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331:897-900.
15. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Lai M, et al. How valuable are multiple treatment comparisonmethods in economic decision modelling? Value Health. 2011;14:371-380.
16. Spiegelhalter DJ. Bayesian graphical modelling: A case study in monitoring health outcomes. J R Stat Soc Ser C. 1998;47:115-133.
17. Turner RM, Spiegelhalter DJ, Smith GCS, Thompson SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:21-47.
18. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.
19. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. WinBUGS user manual: Version 1.4. Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2003.
20. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the single technology appraisal (STA) process. London: NICE; September 2006.
21. Wailoo A, Pickstone C. A review of the NICE single technology appraisal process. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield (Decision Support Unit); 2008.
22. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2004.
23. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.
24. Turner D, Wailoo A, Nicholson K, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Systematic review and economic decision modelling for the prevention and treatment of influenza A and B. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7: iii-1v.
25. Burch J, Paulden M, Conti S, et al. Antiviral drugs for the treatment of influenza: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1-265.
26. Ara R, Blake L, Gray L, et al. What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using drugs in treating obese patients in primary care? Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:iii-xiv.
27. O'Meara S, Riemsma R, Shirran L, Mather L, ter Riet G. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1-81.
28. O'Meara S, Riemsma R, Shirran L, Mather L, ter Riet G. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in the management of obesity: A technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6;1-97.
29. Dequen P, editor. What is relevant clinical evidence in HTA? A critical review of international HTA guidelines in Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 9th HTAi Annual Meeting; 2012; Euskalduna Conference Centre and Concert Hall, Bilbao, Spain.
30. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. HTAGuidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 2006. 3rd edition http://cadth.ca/media/pdf/186-EconomicGuidelines-e.pdf (accessed October 1, 2011).
31. Haute Autorit́e De Sant́e. L'́evaluation ́economique ̀a la Haute Autorit́e de Sant́e Principes et ḿethodes 2010. http://www.hassante. fr/portail/jcms/c-1049763/les- principes-fondateurs-delevaluation-economique-a-la-has (accessed October 1, 2011).
32. Fr̈oschl B, Brunner-Ziegler S, Conrads-Frank A, et al. Methodenhandbuch f̈ur Health Technology Assessment Vorab-Version 1.2012 (pre-release). 2012. http://www.goeg.at/de/Bereich/HTA-Methoden-und-Prozesse. html (accessed April 1, 2011).
33. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Prepublication draft copy. Rockville, Maryland, US. 2011. http://www.effectivehealthcare. ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?productid= 318&pageaction=displayproduct (accessed April 1, 2012).
34. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Guidance to manufacturers for completion of new product assessment form. 2012. http://www.scottish medicines.org.uk/ About-SMC/Latest-News/News-Articles/New-Product-Assessment-Form-Guidance-For- Manufacturers (accessed April 1, 2012).
35. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). 2008. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing. nsf/content/ pbacguidelines-index (accessed October 1, 2011).
36. Drummond M, Iglesias CP, CooperNJ. Systematic reviews and economic evaluations conducted for NICE in the UK: A game of two halves? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:146-150.
37. Novielli N, Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. How is evidence on test performance synthesised in economic decision models of diagnostic tests? A systematic appraisal of Health Technology Assessments in the UK since 1997. Value Health. 2010;13:952-957.
38. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost-effectiveness modelling. Stat Med. 2003;22:3687-3709.
39. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Turner D, Wailoo A. Comprehensive decision analytical modelling in economic evaluation: A Bayesian approach. Health Econ. 2004;13:203-226.
40. Bujkiewicz S, Jones H, Lai M, et al. Development of a Transparent Interactive Decision Interrogator to facilitate the decision making process in health care. Value Health. 2011;14:768-776.
41. Rodgers M, Epstein D, Bojke L, et al. Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:ixxi.
42. Jackson CH, Thompson SG, Sharples LD. Accounting for uncertainty in health economic decision models by using model averaging. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2009;172:383-404.
43. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 2002;64:583-639.