Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18767899›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2008

Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Mark Sculpher

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Prioritizing Research in an Era of Personalized Medicine: The Potential Value of Unexplained Heterogeneity.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mark SculpherCentre for Health Economics and NICE Decision Support Unit, University of York, Heslington, York, UK. mjs23@york.ac.uk

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U145079308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is required to consider cost effectiveness when issuing guidance about the use of health technologies within the UK NHS. Cost effectiveness is a means of supporting a system objective of maximizing population health gain from the available budget. There is a range of sources of variation between individuals in disease prognosis, and in the costs and effects of health technologies. It is often possible to explain some of this variation on the basis of the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of patients. This facilitates subgroup-specific estimates of parameters in decision analytic models and provides a means of assessing heterogeneity in cost effectiveness between different types of patient. Given the objective of the NHS, there is a clear need for NICE, and similar decision makers in other systems, to reflect this heterogeneity by being as specific as possible about the characteristics of the recipients of new treatments. The use of subgroup analysis in cost-effectiveness analysis raises a number of methodological questions that have been given little consideration in the literature. They include a need to define the possible sources of heterogeneity that exist, which extends beyond relative treatment effect (which is the focus of clinical trial analysis) to include, for example, sources relating to baseline event rates. There is also the issue of how heterogeneity in model parameters should be estimated and how uncertainty should be appropriately quantified. A major issue also exists concerning the appropriateness, in terms of equity, of using all or some of the subgroup analyses as a basis of decision making. NICE needed to consider these and other issues when updating its methods guidance.

Indexed as

Decision Making, OrganizationalModels, EconometricCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareHumansUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID18767899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.