Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analysis is now an integral part of health technology assessment and addresses the question of whether a new treatment or other health care program offers good value for money. In this paper we introduce the basic framework for decision making with cost-effectiveness data and then review recent developments in statistical methods for analysis of uncertainty when cost-effectiveness estimates are based on observed data from a clinical trial. Although much research has focused on methods for calculating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios using bootstrapping or Fieller's method, these calculations can be problematic with a ratio-based statistic where numerator and/or denominator can be zero. We advocate plotting the joint density of cost and effect differences, together with cumulative density plots known as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) to summarize the overall value-for-money of interventions. We also outline the net-benefit formulation of the cost-effectiveness problem and show that it has particular advantages over the standard incremental cost-effectiveness ratio formulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.168 | 0.358 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".