Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26105525›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2015

Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice.

James F O'Mahony, Anthony T Newall, Joost van Rosmalen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A comprehensive review of official discount rates in guidelines of health economic evaluations over time: the trends and roots.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. General-Purpose Methods for Simulating Survival Data for Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Rapid Access Atrial Fibrillation Clinics in Australia - Modelling Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

James F O'MahonyDepartment of Health Policy and Management, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. jfomahon@tcd.ie.
Anthony T NewallSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. a.newall@unsw.edu.au.
Joost van RosmalenDepartment of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.vanrosmalen@erasmusmc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Time is an important aspect of health economic evaluation, as the timing and duration of clinical events, healthcare interventions and their consequences all affect estimated costs and effects. These issues should be reflected in the design of health economic models. This article considers three important aspects of time in modelling: (1) which cohorts to simulate and how far into the future to extend the analysis; (2) the simulation of time, including the difference between discrete-time and continuous-time models, cycle lengths, and converting rates and probabilities; and (3) discounting future costs and effects to their present values. We provide a methodological overview of these issues and make recommendations to help inform both the conduct of cost-effectiveness analyses and the interpretation of their results. For choosing which cohorts to simulate and how many, we suggest analysts carefully assess potential reasons for variation in cost effectiveness between cohorts and the feasibility of subgroup-specific recommendations. For the simulation of time, we recommend using short cycles or continuous-time models to avoid biases and the need for half-cycle corrections, and provide advice on the correct conversion of transition probabilities in state transition models. Finally, for discounting, analysts should not only follow current guidance and report how discounting was conducted, especially in the case of differential discounting, but also seek to develop an understanding of its rationale. Our overall recommendations are that analysts explicitly state and justify their modelling choices regarding time and consider how alternative choices may impact on results.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicAge FactorsCohort StudiesComputer SimulationCosts and Cost AnalysisDecision Support TechniquesDelivery of Health CareEconomics, MedicalHumansTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26105525
PMCPMC4661216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.