PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10539120

Measuring sensitivity in pharmacoeconomic studies. Refining point sensitivity and range sensitivity by incorporating probability distributions.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is to describe a refinement of a previously presented method, based on the concept of point sensitivity, to deal with uncertainty in economic studies. DESIGN: The original method was refined by the incorporation of probability distributions which allow a more accurate assessment of the level of uncertainty in the model. In addition, a bootstrap method was used to create a probability distribution for a fixed input variable based on a limited number of data points. The original method was limited in that the sensitivity measurement was based on a uniform distribution of the variables and that the overall sensitivity measure was based on a subjectively chosen range which excludes the impact of values outside the range on the overall sensitivity. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: The concepts of the refined method were illustrated using a Markov model of depression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The application of the refined method substantially changed the ranking of the most sensitive variables compared with the original method. The response rate became the most sensitive variable instead of the 'per diem' for hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: The refinement of the original method yields sensitivity outcomes, which greater reflect the real uncertainty in economic studies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M J Nuijten. 1999. Measuring sensitivity in pharmacoeconomic studies. Refining point sensitivity and range sensitivity by incorporating probability distributions.. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199916010-00004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Pharmacoeconomic studies in Italy: a critical review of the literature.

To assess the state of pharmacoeconomics in Italy we reviewed all the original studies published by Italian authors in national and international journals from January 1994 to December 2003. We selected 70 articles and broadly assessed 92 economic evaluations (EEs) since some articles contained multiple analyses. We adopted common analysis criteria to allow methodological comparison of the studies. The variables investigated can be grouped into three categories: general methods, costs, and consequences. To further assess the quality of the EEs, we decided to rank them according to criteria of both clinical and economic good practice. Then, to complete our critical evaluation, we analysed whether sponsorship might have somehow affected the results. Our analysis seems to support the widespread scepticism of the Italian NHS decision-makers towards pharmacoeconomic studies, whose results seem to be biased by flawed methods and sponsors' interference with results.

Economics, Pharmaceutical↗

Accuracy versus transparency in pharmacoeconomic modelling: finding the right balance.

As modellers push to make their models more accurate, the ability of others to understand the models can decrease, causing the models to lose transparency. When this type of conflict between accuracy and transparency occurs, the question arises, "Where do we want to operate on that spectrum?" This paper argues that in such cases we should give absolute priority to accuracy: push for whatever degree of accuracy is needed to answer the question being asked, try to maximise transparency within that constraint, and find other ways to replace what we wanted to get from transparency. There are several reasons. The fundamental purpose of a model is to help us get the right answer to a question and, by any measure, the expected value of a model is proportional to its accuracy. Ironically, we use transparency as a way to judge accuracy. But transparency is not a very powerful or useful way to do this. It rarely enables us to actually replicate the model's results and, even if we could, replication would not tell us the model's accuracy. Transparency rarely provides even face validity; from the content expert's perspective, the simplifications that modellers have to make usually raise more questions than they answer. Transparency does enable modellers to alert users to weaknesses in their models, but that can be achieved simply by listing the model's limitations and does not get us any closer to real accuracy. Sensitivity analysis tests the importance of uncertainty about the variables in a model, but does not tell us about the variables that were omitted or the structure of the model. What people really want to know is whether a model actually works. Transparency by itself can't answer this; only demonstrations that the model accurately calculates or predicts real events can. Rigorous simulations of clinical trials are a good place to start. This is the type of empirical validation we need to provide if the potential of mathematical models in pharmacoeconomics is to be fully achieved.

Economics, Pharmaceutical↗