Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: an audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: To determine how we define good practice in sensitivity analysis in general and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) in particular, and to what extent it has been adhered to in the independent economic evaluations undertaken for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) over recent years; to establish what policy impact sensitivity analysis has in the context of NICE, and policy-makers' views on sensitivity analysis and uncertainty, and what use is made of sensitivity analysis in policy decision-making. DATA SOURCES: Three major electronic databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were searched from inception to February 2008. REVIEW METHODS: The meaning of 'good practice' in the broad area of sensitivity analysis was explored through a review of the literature. An audit was undertaken of the 15 most recent NICE multiple technology appraisal judgements and their related reports to assess how sensitivity analysis has been undertaken by independent academic teams for NICE. A review of the policy and guidance documents issued by NICE aimed to assess the policy impact of the sensitivity analysis and the PSA in particular. Qualitative interview data from NICE Technology Appraisal Committee members, collected as part of an earlier study, were also analysed to assess the value attached to the sensitivity analysis components of the economic analyses conducted for NICE. RESULTS: All forms of sensitivity analysis, notably both deterministic and probabilistic approaches, have their supporters and their detractors. Practice in relation to univariate sensitivity analysis is highly variable, with considerable lack of clarity in relation to the methods used and the basis of the ranges employed. In relation to PSA, there is a high level of variability in the form of distribution used for similar parameters, and the justification for such choices is rarely given. Virtually all analyses failed to consider correlations within the PSA, and this is an area of concern. Uncertainty is considered explicitly in the process of arriving at a decision by the NICE Technology Appraisal Committee, and a correlation between high levels of uncertainty and negative decisions was indicated. The findings suggest considerable value in deterministic sensitivity analysis. Such analyses serve to highlight which model parameters are critical to driving a decision. Strong support was expressed for PSA, principally because it provides an indication of the parameter uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The review and the policy impact assessment focused exclusively on documentary evidence, excluding other sources that might have revealed further insights on this issue. In seeking to address parameter uncertainty, both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses should be used. It is evident that some cost-effectiveness work, especially around the sensitivity analysis components, represents a challenge in making it accessible to those making decisions. This speaks to the training agenda for those sitting on such decision-making bodies, and to the importance of clear presentation of analyses by the academic community.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,541 | 0,758 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,014 | 0,020 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,036 | 0,047 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Communication savante | 0,018 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».