Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: How Much Uncertainty Is in the Results?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analyses of new cancer treatments in real-world settings (e.g., post-clinical trials) inform healthcare decision makers about their healthcare investments for patient populations. The results of these analyses are often, though not always, presented with statistical uncertainty. This paper identifies five ways to characterize statistical uncertainty: (1) a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); (2) a 95% CI for the incremental net benefit (INB); (3) an INB by willingness-to-pay (WTP) plot; (4) a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC); and (5) a cost-effectiveness scatterplot. It also explores their usage in 22 articles previously identified by a rapid review of real-world cost effectiveness of novel cancer treatments. Seventy-seven percent of these articles presented uncertainty results. The majority those papers (59%) used administrative data to inform their analyses while the remaining were conducted using models. Cost-effectiveness scatterplots were the most commonly used method (34.3%), with 40% indicating high levels of statistical uncertainty, suggesting the possibility of a qualitatively different result from the estimate given. Understanding the necessity for and the meaning of uncertainty in real-world cost-effectiveness analysis will strengthen knowledge translation efforts to improve patient outcomes in an efficient manner.
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 | 0.171 | 0.530 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".