Expected value of sample information for multi-arm cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 352-365

  Welton, Nicky J ^a   Madan, Jason J ^a   Caldwell, Deborah M ^a   Peters, Tim J ^a   Ades, Anthony E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian inference; heterogeneity; optimal trial design; sample size determination; value of information

Indexed keywords

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84898774446     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13501229     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005 ; 14: 339-47
2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal (updated April2013). London: NICE. Available at: URL: http://publications.nice.org.uk/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology- appraisal-2013-pmg9
3. Felli JC, Hazen GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making. 1998 ; 18: 95-109
4. Pratt JW, Raiffa H, Schlaifer R Statistical Decision Theory. 3 rd ed.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ; 2001 :
5. Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ. 1996 ; 5: 513-24
6. Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JPT. The interpretation of random effects meta-analysis in decision models. Med Decis Making. 2005 ; 25: 646-54
7. Welton NJ, Ades AE. Research decisions in the face of heterogeneity: what can a new study tell us?. Health Econ. 2012 ; 21: 1196-200
8. Donner A, Birkett N, Buck C London: Arnold ; 2000 :
9. Gomes M, Ng ES-W, Grieve R, Nixon R, Carpenter J, Thompson SG. Developing appropriate methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of cluster randomized trials. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32: 350-61
10. Welton NJ, Ades AE, Caldwell DM, Peters TJ. Research prioritisation based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screening. J R Stat Soc A. 2008 ; 171: 807-41
11. Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 2004 ; 24: 207-27
12. Brown J, Welton NJ, Bankhead C, et al. A Bayesian approach to analysing the cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening. Health Econ. 2006 ; 15: 435-45
13. Richards SH, Bankhead C, Peters TJ, et al. Cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening. J Med Screen. 2001 ; 8: 91-8
14. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB Bayesian Data Analysis. 2 nd ed.London: Chapman & Hall; 2004. London: Chapman & Hall ; 2004 :
15. Breast Screening Programme. England London: Government Statistical Service ; 2005 :
16. Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions. Stat Med. 2009 ; 28: 3049-67
17. Willan AR, Eckermann S. Accounting for between-study variation in incremental net benefit in value of information methodology. Health Econ. 2012 ; 21: 1183-95
18. Gomes M, Grieve R, Nixon R, Edmunds WJ. Statistical methods for cost-effectiveness analyses that use data from cluster randomized trials: a systematic review and checklist for critical appraisal. Med Decis Making. 2012 ; 32: 209-20
19. Griffin S, Welton NJ, Claxton KP. Exploring the research decision space: the expected value of information for sequential research designs. Med Decis Making. 2010 ; 30: 155-62
20. Price MJ, Welton NJ, Briggs A, Ades AE. Model averaging in the presence of structural uncertainty about treatment effects: impact on treatment decision and expected value of information. Value Health. 2011 ; 14: 205-18
21. Oakley JE, Brennan A, Tappenden P, Chilcott J. Simulation sample sizes for Monte Carlo partial EVPI calculations. J Health Econ. 2010 ; 29: 468-77
22. Foster C Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press ; 2001 :
23. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987 ; 317: 141-5
24. Lilford RJ, Jackson J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med. 1995 ; 88: 552-9
25. Bayesian Methods and Ethics in a Clinical Trial Design. Kadane JB, ed. New York: Wiley ; 1996 :
26. Binik A, McRae AD, Grimshaw JM, et al. Does clinical equipoise apply to cluster randomized trials in health research?. Trials. 2011 ; 12: 118