Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29679317›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2018

Sensitivity Analysis for Not-at-Random Missing Data in Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial.

Baptiste Leurent, Manuel Gomes, Rita Faria, Stephen Morris, Richard Grieve, James R Carpenter

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 70 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Cost-effectiveness of early rhythm control vs. usual care in atrial fibrillation care: an analysis based on data from the EAST-AFNET 4 trial.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Plaster cast versus functional bracing for Achilles tendon rupture: the UKSTAR RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020
    Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Baptiste LeurentDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. baptiste.leurent@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6420-6567
Manuel GomesDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1428-1232
Rita FariaCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Richard GrieveDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
James R CarpenterDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-12437Department of Health DRF-2015-08-047Department of Health SRF-2013-06-016Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of randomised controlled trials are a key source of information for health care decision makers. Missing data are, however, a common issue that can seriously undermine their validity. A major concern is that the chance of data being missing may be directly linked to the unobserved value itself [missing not at random (MNAR)]. For example, patients with poorer health may be less likely to complete quality-of-life questionnaires. However, the extent to which this occurs cannot be ascertained from the data at hand. Guidelines recommend conducting sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of conclusions to plausible MNAR assumptions, but this is rarely done in practice, possibly because of a lack of practical guidance. This tutorial aims to address this by presenting an accessible framework and practical guidance for conducting sensitivity analysis for MNAR data in trial-based CEA. We review some of the methods for conducting sensitivity analysis, but focus on one particularly accessible approach, where the data are multiply-imputed and then modified to reflect plausible MNAR scenarios. We illustrate the implementation of this approach on a weight-loss trial, providing the software code. We then explore further issues around its use in practice.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29679317
PMCPMC6021473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.