Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34008137›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2021

Estimation of Transition Probabilities for State-Transition Models: A Review of NICE Appraisals.

Tushar Srivastava, Nicholas R Latimer, Paul Tappenden

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Approaches to modeling treatment sequencing in practice: a thematic review of prior NICE appraisals.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the inter-B-NHL ritux 2010 trial: rituximab in children and adolescents with B cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Tushar SrivastavaSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. t.srivastava@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5961-9348
Nicholas R LatimerSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5304-5585
Paul TappendenSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6612-2332

Funding

Department of Health NIHR300461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

State transition models are used to inform health technology reimbursement decisions. Within state transition models, the movement of patients between the model health states over discrete time intervals is determined by transition probabilities (TPs). Estimating TPs presents numerous issues, including missing data for specific transitions, data incongruence and uncertainty around extrapolation. Inappropriately estimated TPs could result in biased models. There is limited guidance on how to address common issues associated with TP estimation. To assess current methods for estimating TPs and to identify issues that may introduce bias, we reviewed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals published from 1 January, 2019 to 27 May, 2020. Twenty-eight models (from 26 Technology Appraisals) were included in the review. Several methods for estimating TPs were identified: survival analysis (n = 11); count method (n = 9); multi-state modelling (n = 7); logistic regression (n = 2); negative binomial regression (n = 2); Poisson regression (n = 1); and calibration (n = 1). Evidence Review Groups identified several issues relating to TP estimation within these models, including important transitions being excluded (n = 5); potential selection bias when estimating TPs for post-randomisation health states (n = 2); issues concerning the use of multiple data sources (n = 4); potential biases resulting from the use of data from different populations (n = 2), and inappropriate assumptions around extrapolation (n = 3). These issues remained unresolved in almost every instance. Failing to address these issues may bias model results and lead to sub-optimal decision making. Further research is recommended to address these methodological problems.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansProbabilitySurvival AnalysisUncertainty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.