Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39720850›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2025

Microsimulation Estimates of Decision Uncertainty and Value of Information Are Biased but Consistent.

Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert, Hawre Jalal, Fernando Alarid-Escudero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. A Tutorial on Discrete Event Simulation Models Using a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Example in R.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    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.

Jeremy D Goldhaber-FiebertDepartment of Health Policy, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4007-5192
Hawre JalalSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8224-6834
Fernando Alarid-EscuderoDepartment of Health Policy, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5076-1172

Funding

Comparative Modeling of Effective Policies for Colorectal Cancer ControlU01CA253913 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI RUTTER, CAROLYN M, ZAUBER, ANN GRAHAM · 2020 to 2025
$6.5M
Population Modeling of Bladder Cancer Detection and ControlU01CA265750 · NCI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI JALAL, HAWRE, TRIKALINOS, THOMAS · 2021 to 2025
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253913NCI NIH HHS U01 CA265750
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIndividual-level state-transition microsimulations (iSTMs) have proliferated for economic evaluations in place of cohort state transition models (cSTMs). Probabilistic economic evaluations quantify decision uncertainty and value of information (VOI). Previous studies show that iSTMs provide unbiased estimates of expected incremental net monetary benefits (EINMB), but statistical properties of iSTM-produced estimates of decision uncertainty and VOI remain uncharacterized.

methodsWe compare iSTM-produced estimates of decision uncertainty and VOI to corresponding cSTMs. For a 2-alternative decision and normally distributed incremental costs and benefits, we derive analytical expressions for the probability of being cost-effective and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for cSTMs and iSTMs, accounting for correlations in incremental outcomes at the population and individual levels. We use numerical simulations to illustrate our findings and explore the impact of relaxing normality assumptions or having >2 decision alternatives.

resultsiSTM estimates of decision uncertainty and VOI are biased but asymptotically consistent (i.e., bias approaches 0 as number of microsimulated individuals approaches infinity). Decision uncertainty depends on 1 tail of the INMB distribution (e.g., P[INMB <0]), which depends on estimated variance (larger with iSTMs given first-order noise). While iSTMs overestimate EVPI, their direction of bias for the probability of being cost-effective is ambiguous. Bias is larger when uncertainties in incremental costs and effects are negatively correlated since this increases INMB variance.

conclusionsiSTMs are useful for probabilistic economic evaluations. While more samples at the population uncertainty level are interchangeable with more microsimulations for estimating EINMB, minimizing iSTM bias in estimating decision uncertainty and VOI depends on sufficient microsimulations. Analysts should account for this when allocating their computational budgets and, at minimum, characterize such bias in their reported results. HIGHLIGHTS: Individual-level state-transition microsimulation models (iSTMs) produce biased but consistent estimates of the probability that interventions are cost-effective.iSTMs also produce biased but consistent estimates of the expected value of perfect information.The biases in these decision uncertainty and value-of-information measures are not reduced by more parameter sets being sampled from their population-level uncertainty distribution but rather by more individuals being microsimulated for each parameter set sampled.Analysts using iSTMs to quantify decision uncertainty and value of information should account for these biases when allocating their computational budgets and, at minimum, characterize such bias in their reported results.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesBiasComputer SimulationHumansProbabilityUncertaintybiasconsistencycost-effectiveness acceptability curvedecision uncertaintymicrosimulationMonte Carloprobabilistic analysissamplingvalue of information

Identifiers

PMID39720850
PMCPMC12185039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.