ReviewPharmacoEconomics2011
Sensitivity analysis in cost-effectiveness studies: from guidelines to practice.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Air Pollution Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review on the appropriate discounting rates for the economic evaluation of gene therapies: whether a specific approach is justified to tackle the challenges?International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review.Journal of global health · 2023Pooled it
- Economic Evaluations of Mental Health Programs for Children and Adolescents in the United States: A Systematic Review.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Micronutrient Powders Combined With Malaria Chemoprevention to Improve Anaemia and Cognitive Function in Early Childhood in Mali: A Cluster-Randomised Trial.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of a chronic back pain multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) compared to standard care for privately insured in Germany.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Integrating systems and implementation science in modeling and evaluating complex health interventions: methodological reflections from service delivery redesign in Kakamega, Kenya.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
- The Pharmacoeconomics and its Evaluation in Enhancing the Indian Healthcare System.Current drug research reviews · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness of antibody-drug conjugates in previously treated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis in primary care research: A practical guide for early-career researchers.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of cadonilimab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of cranial implants compared with autologous bone grafts.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of cadonilimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Review
- Design and rationale of the Botswana Smoking Abstinence Reinforcement Trial: a protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Dolutegravir in Combination with Tenofovir and Lamivudine for HIV Therapy: A Systematic Review.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Review
- Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Development of a microcosting protocol to determine the economic cost of diagnostic genomic testing for rare diseases in Australia.BMJ open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is one of the main tools of economic evaluation. Every CEA is based on a number of assumptions, some of which may not be accurate, introducing uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis (SA) formalizes ways to measure and evaluate this uncertainty. Specific sources of uncertainty in CEA have been noted by various researchers. In this work, we consolidate across all sources of uncertainty, discuss the imbalanced attention to SA across different sources, and discuss criteria for conducting and reporting SA to help bridge the gap between guidelines and practice. Guidelines on how to perform SA have been published for many years in response to requests for greater standardization among researchers. Decision makers tasked with reviewing new health technologies also seem to appreciate the additional information conveyed by a robust SA, including the attention to important patient subgroups. Yet, past reviews have shown that there is a substantial gap between the guidelines' suggestions and the quality of SA in the field. Past reviews have also focused on one or two but not all three sources of uncertainty. The objective of our work is to comprehensively review all different sources of uncertainty and provide a concise set of criteria for conducting and presenting SA, stratified by common modelling approaches, including decision analysis and regression models. We first provide an overview of the three sources of uncertainty in a CEA (parameter, structural and methodological), including patient heterogeneity. We then present results from a literature review of the conduct and reporting of SA based on 406 CEA articles published between 2000 and mid-2009. We find that a minority of papers addressed at least two of the three sources of uncertainty, with no change over time. On the other hand, the use of some sophisticated techniques, such as probabilistic SA, has surged over the past 10 years. Lastly, we identify criteria for reporting uncertainty-robust SA and also discuss how to conduct SA and how to improve the reporting of SA for decision makers. We recommend that researchers take a more comprehensive view of uncertainty when planning SA for an economic evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21395350What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.