ArticlePharmacoEconomics2015
Characterizing Heterogeneity Bias in Cohort-Based Models.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Review
- Understanding bias in probabilistic analysis in model-based health economic evaluation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Article
- Myths and Misconceptions of Within-Cycle Correction: A Guide for Modelers and Decision Makers.PharmacoEconomics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrevious research using numerical methods suggested that use of a cohort-based model instead of an individual-based model can result in significant heterogeneity bias. However, the direction of the bias is not known a priori. We characterized mathematically the conditions that lead to upward or downward bias.
methodWe used a standard three-state disease progression model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a hypothetical intervention. We solved the model analytically and derived expressions for life expectancy, discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted lifetime costs and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). An outcome was calculated using the mean of the input under the cohort-based approach and the whole input distribution for all persons under the individual-based approach. We investigated the impact of heterogeneity on outcomes by varying one parameter at a time while keeping all others constant. We evaluated the curvature of outcome functions and used Jensen's inequality to determine the direction of the bias.
resultsBoth life expectancy and QALYs were underestimated by the cohort-based approach. If there was heterogeneity only in disease progression, total costs were overestimated, whereas QALYs gained, incremental costs and INMB were under- or overestimated, depending on the progression rate. INMB was underestimated when only efficacy was heterogeneous. Both approaches yielded the same outcome when the heterogeneity was only in cost or utilities.
conclusionA cohort-based approach that does not adjust for heterogeneity underestimates life expectancy and may underestimate or overestimate other outcomes. Characterizing the bias is useful for comparative assessment of models and informing decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25851486What 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.