ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2016
Cost-of-illness studies based on massive data: a prevalence-based, top-down regression approach.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost analysis of female breast cancer in Antigua and Barbuda: a prevalence based study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Healthcare costs associated with breast cancer in Germany: a claims data analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Article
- The economic burden of diabetes to French national health insurance: a new cost-of-illness method based on a combined medicalized and incremental approach.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Article
- Cost-of-illness models for venous thromboembolism: One size does not fit all.Thrombosis research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the increasing availability of routine data, no analysis method has yet been presented for cost-of-illness (COI) studies based on massive data. We aim, first, to present such a method and, second, to assess the relevance of the associated gain in numerical efficiency. We propose a prevalence-based, top-down regression approach consisting of five steps: aggregating the data; fitting a generalized additive model (GAM); predicting costs via the fitted GAM; comparing predicted costs between prevalent and non-prevalent subjects; and quantifying the stochastic uncertainty via error propagation. To demonstrate the method, it was applied to aggregated data in the context of chronic lung disease to German sickness funds data (from 1999), covering over 7.3 million insured. To assess the gain in numerical efficiency, the computational time of the innovative approach has been compared with corresponding GAMs applied to simulated individual-level data. Furthermore, the probability of model failure was modeled via logistic regression. Applying the innovative method was reasonably fast (19 min). In contrast, regarding patient-level data, computational time increased disproportionately by sample size. Furthermore, using patient-level data was accompanied by a substantial risk of model failure (about 80 % for 6 million subjects). The gain in computational efficiency of the innovative COI method seems to be of practical relevance. Furthermore, it may yield more precise cost estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25648977What 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.