Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T22:36:26.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Heterogeneity and uncertainty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2014

M. G. Myriam Hunink
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Milton C. Weinstein
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Eve Wittenberg
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health, Massachusetts
Michael F. Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Joseph S. Pliskin
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
John B. Wong
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Paul P. Glasziou
Affiliation:
Bond University, Queensland
Get access

Summary

Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability.

Sir William Osler

Introduction

Decision trees and Markov cohort models, as described and illustrated in the previous chapters, are essentially macrosimulation models. Such models simulate cohorts or groups of subjects. A number of limitations exist to the use of these models. Markov cohort models, for example, have ‘no memory’, implying that subjects in a particular state are a homogeneous group. Techniques to overcome these limitations, such as expanding the number of states, using tunnel states, or using alternative modeling techniques, were discussed in Chapter 10. These techniques can get very complex when dealing with extensive heterogeneity within a population. Microsimulation using Monte Carlo analysis provides another powerful technique to account for heterogeneity across subjects. Microsimulation with Monte Carlo analysis was introduced in Chapter 10 as an alternative method for evaluating a Markov model. In this chapter it will be discussed at greater length in the context of simulating heterogeneity.

In the previous chapters we represented uncertainty with probabilities. Implicitly the assumption was that, even though we were unsure of whether an event would take place, we could nevertheless predict or estimate the probability (or relative frequency) that it would occur. In essence we were using deterministic models. In reality, however, we are also uncertain of the degree of uncertainty. In other words, rather than dealing with a fixed probability we are actually dealing with a distribution of possible values of probabilities. Not only are we uncertain about the probabilities we use in our models, but we are also uncertain about the effectiveness outcomes and cost estimates included in the analysis. Thus, every parameter value we enter into our models is better represented as a probabilistic variable rather than a deterministic variable. If there is a single uncertain parameter, e.g., the relative risk reduction of an intervention, then the 95% confidence interval (CI) of this parameter is commonly used to indicate the uncertainty of the effect. Uncertainty in two or more components requires more complex methods, such as Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which we will also discuss in this chapter.

Type
Chapter
Information
Decision Making in Health and Medicine
Integrating Evidence and Values
, pp. 356 - 391
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Groot Koerkamp, B, Weinstein, MC, Stijnen, T, Heijenbrok-Kal, MH, Hunink, MG. Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(2):194–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groot Koerkamp, B, Stijnen, T, Weinstein, MC, Hunink, MG. The combined analysis of uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(4):650–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claxton, K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claxton, K, Sculpher, M, Drummond, M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet. 2002;360(9334):711–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, WG, Fryback, DG, Weinstein, MC. Reflecting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York; 1996. pp. 247–75.
Briggs, AH, Weinstein, MC, Fenwick, EA, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):722–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basu, A, Meltzer, D. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):112–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunink, MGM, Goldman, L, Tosteson, AN, et al. The recent decline in mortality from coronary heart disease, 1980–1990. The effect of secular trends in risk factors and treatment. JAMA. 1997;277(7):535–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazar, LD, Pletcher, MJ, Coxson, PG, Bibbins-Domingo, K, Goldman, L. Cost-effectiveness of statin therapy for primary prevention in a low-cost statin era. Circulation. 2011;124(2):146–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ravesteyn, NT, Heijnsdijk, EA, Draisma, G, de Koning, HJ. Prediction of higher mortality reduction for the UK Breast Screening Frequency Trial: a model-based approach on screening intervals. Brit J Cancer. 2011;105(7):1082–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doubilet, P, Begg, CB, Weinstein, MC, Braun, P, McNeil, BJ. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach. Med Decis Making. 1985;5(2):157–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, FO, Hammonds, JS. Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Anal. 1994;14(5):707–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DerSimonian, R, Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1986;7:177–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, ML, Fintor, L. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening: preliminary results of a systematic review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1993;25(2):113–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, H, Briggs, A, Buxton, M, Kim, L, Thompson, S. The credibility of health economic models for health policy decision-making: the case of population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):11–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandelblatt, JS, Cronin, KA, Berry, DA, et al. Modeling the impact of population screening on breast cancer mortality in the United States. Breast. 2011;20 Suppl 3:S75–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuntz, KM, Weinstein, MC. Life expectancy biases in clinical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:158–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Law, AM, Kelton, WD. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. 3rd edn. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2000.Google Scholar
Efron, B, Tibshirani, RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall; 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duintjer Tebbens, RJ, Thompson, KM, Hunink, MG, et al. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of a dynamic economic evaluation model for vaccination programs. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(2):182–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, AH, Wonderling, DE, Mooney, CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 1997;6(4):327–40.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mennemeyer, ST, Cyr, LP. A bootstrap approach to medical decision analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(6):741–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Critchfield, GC, Willard, KE, Connelly, DP. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis methods for general decision models. Comput Biomed Res. 1986;19(3):254–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parmigiani, G, Samsa, GP, Ancukiewicz, M, et al. Assessing uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses: application to a complex decision model. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(4):390–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, H, Hedges, LV, Valentine, JC. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York: Russel Sage Foundation; 2009.Google Scholar
Higgins, JPT, Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Collaboration 2011.
Briggs, AH, Goeree, R, Blackhouse, G, O’Brien, BJ. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(4):290–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briggs, AH, Ades, AE, Price, MJ. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for decision trees with multiple branches: use of the Dirichlet distribution in a Bayesian framework. Med Decis Making. 2003;23(4):341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hout, BA, Al, MJ, Gordon, GS, Rutten, FF. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3(5):309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakker, P, Klaassen, MP. Confidence intervals for cost/effectiveness ratios. Health Econ. 1995;4(5):373–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaudhary, MA, Stearns, SC. Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial. Stat Med. 1996;15(13):1447–58.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polsky, D, Glick, HA, Willke, R, Schulman, K. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ. 1997;6(3):243–52.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heitjan, DF, Moskowitz, AJ, Whang, W. Bayesian estimation of cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials. Health Econ. 1999;8(3):191–201.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stinnett, AA, Mullahy, J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2 Suppl):S68–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fieller, EC. The distribution of the index in a normal bivariate population. Biometrika. 1932;24:428–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muradin, GS, Hunink, MG. Cost and patency rate targets for the development of endovascular devises to treat femoropopliteal arterial disease. Radiology. 2001;221(1):137–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, K, Kock, MC, Kuntz, KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness targets for multi-detector row CT angiography in the work-up of patients with intermittent claudication. Radiology. 2003;227(3):647–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunink, MGM, Kuntz, KM, Fleischmann, KE, Brady, TJ. Noninvasive imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: focusing the development of new diagnostic technology. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1999;131(9):673–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps, CE, Mushlin, AI. Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med Decis Making. 1988;8:279–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunink, MGM, Bult, JR, de Vries, J, Weinstein, MC. Uncertainty in decision models analyzing cost-effectiveness: the joint distribution of incremental costs and effectiveness evaluated with a nonparametric bootstrap method. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(3):337–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groot Koerkamp, B, Hunink, MG, Stijnen, T, et al. Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):101–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ades, AE, Lu, G, Claxton, K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(2):207–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groot Koerkamp, B, Nikken, JJ, Oei, EH, et al. Value of information analysis used to determine the necessity of additional research: MR imaging in acute knee trauma as an example. Radiology. 2008;246(2):420–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×