Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36943674›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2023

Comprehensive Review of Methods to Assess Uncertainty in Health Economic Evaluations.

Thomas Michael Otten, Sabine E Grimm, Bram Ramaekers, Manuela A Joore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Thomas Michael OttenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), P. Debyelaan 25, Oxford Building, PO Box 5800a, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands. thomas.otten@mumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6390-5638
Sabine E GrimmDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), P. Debyelaan 25, Oxford Building, PO Box 5800a, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.
Bram RamaekersDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), P. Debyelaan 25, Oxford Building, PO Box 5800a, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.
Manuela A JooreDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), P. Debyelaan 25, Oxford Building, PO Box 5800a, Maastricht, Limburg, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uncertainty assessment is a cornerstone in model-based health economic evaluations (HEEs) that inform reimbursement decisions. No comprehensive overview of available uncertainty assessment methods currently exists. We aimed to review methods for uncertainty assessment for use in model-based HEEs, by conducting a snowballing review. We categorised all methods according to their stage of use relating to uncertainty assessment (identification, analysis, communication). Additionally, we classified identification methods according to sources of uncertainty, and subdivided analysis and communication methods according to their purpose. The review identified a total of 80 uncertainty methods: 30 identification, 28 analysis, and 22 communication methods. Uncertainty identification methods exist to address uncertainty from different sources. Most identification methods were developed with the objective to assess related concepts such as validity, model quality, and relevance. Almost all uncertainty analysis and communication methods required uncertainty to be quantified and inclusion of uncertainties in probabilistic analysis. Our review can help analysts and decision makers in selecting uncertainty assessment methods according to their aim and purpose of the assessment. We noted a need for further clarification of terminology and guidance on the use of (combinations of) methods to identify uncertainty and related concepts such as validity and quality. A key finding is that uncertainty assessment relies heavily on quantification, which may necessitate increased use of expert elicitation and/or the development of methods to assess unquantified uncertainty.

Indexed as

CommunicationCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID36943674
PMCPMC10163110

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.