Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36104860›Full record

ReviewEpidemiologic reviews2022

Econometric Issues in Prospective Economic Evaluations Alongside Clinical Trials: Combining the Nonparametric Bootstrap With Methods That Address Missing Data.

Ali Jalali, Rulla M Tamimi, Sterling M McPherson, Sean M Murphy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epidemiologic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Ali Jalali
Rulla M Tamimi
Sterling M McPherson
Sean M Murphy

Funding

Utilization of health services after engagement with opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment provider by individuals with and without post-traumatic stress disorderP30DA040500 · NIDA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Yuhua Bao · 2015 to 2026
$20.7M
Health and Economic Outcomes of Treatment with Extended-Release Naltrexone Among Pre-Release Prisoners with Opioid Use DisorderR01DA046721 · NIDA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI MURPHY, SEAN M. · 2019 to 2022
$1.6M
NIDA NIH HHS P30 DA040500NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA046721
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prospective economic evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials have become an increasingly popular approach in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a public health initiative or treatment intervention. These types of economic studies provide improved internal validity and accuracy of cost and effectiveness estimates of health interventions and, compared with simulation or decision-analytic models, have the advantage of jointly observing health and economics outcomes of trial participants. However, missing data due to incomplete response or patient attrition, and sampling uncertainty are common concerns in econometric analysis of clinical trials. Missing data are a particular problem for comparative effectiveness trials of substance use disorder interventions. Multiple imputation and inverse probability weighting are 2 widely recommended methods to address missing data bias, and the nonparametric bootstrap is recommended to address uncertainty in predicted mean cost and effectiveness between trial interventions. Although these methods have been studied extensively by themselves, little is known about how to appropriately combine them and about the potential pitfalls and advantages of different approaches. We provide a review of statistical methods used in 29 economic evaluations of substance use disorder intervention identified from 4 published systematic reviews and a targeted search of the literature. We evaluate how each study addressed missing data bias, whether the recommended nonparametric bootstrap was used, how these 2 methods were combined, and conclude with recommendations for future research.

Indexed as

Substance-Related DisordersBiasCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansProspective StudiesUncertaintyinverse probability weightingmissing data mechanismmodels, econometricmultiple imputationnonparametric bootstrapsubstance-related disorders

Identifiers

PMID36104860
PMCPMC10362933

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.