Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38676871›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2024

Advances in Addressing Patient Heterogeneity in Economic Evaluation: A Review of the Methods Literature.

Gemma E Shields, Paul Clarkson, Ash Bullement, Warren Stevens, Mark Wilberforce, Tracey Farragher, Arpana Verma, Linda M Davies

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

8 authors.

Gemma E ShieldsManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. gemma.shields@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4869-7524
Paul ClarksonSocial Care and Society, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0778-312X
Ash BullementDelta Hat Ltd, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7091-0972
Warren StevensMedicus Economics, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8844-4746
Mark WilberforceSocial Policy Research Unit, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6977-4483
Tracey FarragherCentre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1968-6378
Arpana VermaThe Epidemiology and Public Health Group (EPHG), Division of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7950-2649
Linda M DaviesManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8801-3559

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analyses commonly use population or sample averages, which can mask key differences across subgroups and may lead to suboptimal resource allocation. Despite there being several new methods developed over the last decade, there is no recent summary of what methods are available to researchers. This review sought to identify advances in methods for addressing patient heterogeneity in economic evaluations and to provide an overview of these methods. A literature search was conducted using the Econlit, Embase and MEDLINE databases to identify studies published after 2011 (date of a previous review on this topic). Eligible studies needed to have an explicit methodological focus, related to how patient heterogeneity can be accounted for within a full economic evaluation. Sixteen studies were included in the review. Methodologies were varied and included regression techniques, model design and value of information analysis. Recent publications have applied methodologies more commonly used in other fields, such as machine learning and causal forests. Commonly noted challenges associated with considering patient heterogeneity included data availability (e.g., sample size), statistical issues (e.g., risk of false positives) and practical factors (e.g., computation time). A range of methods are available to address patient heterogeneity in economic evaluation, with relevant methods differing according to research question, scope of the economic evaluation and data availability. Researchers need to be aware of the challenges associated with addressing patient heterogeneity (e.g., data availability) to ensure findings are meaningful and robust. Future research is needed to assess whether and how methods are being applied in practice.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMachine LearningModels, EconomicResearch Design

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.