ArticlePharmacoEconomics2020
R and Shiny for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Why and When? A Hypothetical Case Study.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Treatments for renal cell carcinoma: NICE Pilot Treatment Pathways Appraisal.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Software with artificial intelligence-derived algorithms for analysing CT brain scans in people with a suspected acute stroke: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness Modelling of Multiple System Atrophy for Early Health Technology Assessment.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Modeling in R: a practical application using a cost-effectiveness analysis.Health economics review · 2025Review
- NICE's Pathways Pilot: Pursuing Good Decision Making in Difficult Circumstances.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2024Article
- Article
- Barriers and Facilitators of Using R for Decision Analytic Modeling in Health Technology Assessment: Focus Group Results.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- #SharingHEOR: Developing Modern Media for Communication and Dissemination of Health Economics and Outcomes Research.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Article
- Making health economic models Shiny: A tutorial.Wellcome open research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth economics models are typically built in Microsoft Excel
objectiveThis case study provides an explicit comparison between Excel and R for contemporary cost-effectiveness analysis.
methodsWe constructed duplicate cost-effectiveness models using Excel and R (with a user interface built using the Shiny package) to address a hypothetical case study typical of contemporary health technology assessment.
resultsWe compared R and Excel versions of the same model design to determine the advantages and limitations of the modelling platforms in terms of (i) analytical capability, (ii) data safety, (iii) building considerations, (iv) usability for technical and non-technical users and (v) model adaptability.
conclusionsThe findings of this explicit comparison are used to produce recommendations for when R might be more suitable than Excel in contemporary cost-effectiveness analyses. We conclude that selection of appropriate modelling software needs to consider case-by-case modelling requirements, particularly (i) intended audience, (ii) complexity of analysis, (iii) nature and frequency of updates and (iv) anticipated model run time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32236891What 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.