SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS IN ECONOMIC-EVALUATION - A REVIEW OF PUBLISHED STUDIES

被引:90
作者
BRIGGS, A
SCULPHER, M
机构
[1] Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University
关键词
ECONOMIC EVALUATION; UNCERTAINTY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1002/hec.4730040502
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
A structured methodological review of journal articles published in 1992 was undertaken to determine whether recently published economic evaluation studies deal systematically and comprehensively with uncertainty. Ninety three journal articles were identified from a range of searches including a computerised search of the MEDLINE CD-Rom database. Articles were reviewed to determine how they had handled uncertainty in: a) data sources; b) generalisability; c) extrapolation; and d) analytic method. Articles were subsequently assessed to determine how they had represented this uncertainty in terms of the overall results of their analysis. Finally, studies were rated on the basis of their overall performance with respect to dealing systematically and comprehensively with uncertainty. Despite the numerous books and articles devoted to the appropriate methods to be employed by analysts conducting economic evaluation, 22 (24%) studies failed to consider uncertainty at all and 35 (38%) studies employed sensitivity analysis in a manner judged as inadequate. In all, 36 (39%) studies were judged to have given at least an adequate account of uncertainty with 13 (14%) of those judged to have provided a good account of uncertainty. Such disappointing results may reflect a general lack of detail in much of the methods literature concerning how sensitivity analysis should be applied and how results should be presented. Journal editors and readers of economic evaluation articles should acquaint themselves with the methods for handling uncertainty in order that they can critically evaluate the extent to which authors have allowed for uncertainties inherent in their analysis.
引用
收藏
页码:355 / 371
页数:17
相关论文
共 112 条
[81]  
Persson U, 1992, Pharmacoeconomics, V2, P500
[82]  
PINILLA J, 1992, CLIN INVEST MED, V15, P8
[83]   EFFECTIVENESS AND COST EFFICIENCY OF INTERVENTIONS IN HEALTH PROMOTION [J].
PRUITT, RH .
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 1992, 17 (08) :926-932
[84]   COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF PROPHYLACTIC AZT FOLLOWING NEEDLESTICK INJURY IN HEALTH-CARE WORKERS [J].
RAMSEY, SD ;
NETTLEMAN, MD .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1992, 12 (02) :142-148
[85]  
RICE TD, 1992, PEDIATRICS, V89, P210
[86]   COST-BENEFIT-ANALYSIS OF AN EDUCATIONAL-PROGRAM FOR GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS BY THE SWEDISH-COMMITTEE-FOR-THE-PREVENTION-AND-TREATMENT-OF-DEPRESSION [J].
RUTZ, W ;
CARLSSON, P ;
VONKNORRING, L ;
WALINDER, J .
ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA, 1992, 85 (06) :457-464
[87]  
SCHRAMM WF, 1992, PUBLIC HEALTH REP, V107, P647
[88]  
Sculpher M J, 1992, Health Econ, V1, P39, DOI 10.1002/hec.4730010107
[89]   SHORT-CHAIN FATTY-ACID ENEMAS - A COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE IN THE TREATMENT OF NONSPECIFIC PROCTOSIGMOIDITIS [J].
SENAGORE, AJ ;
MACKEIGAN, JM ;
SCHEIDER, M ;
EBROM, JS .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 1992, 35 (10) :923-927
[90]   COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF EXTENDED CONSERVATIVE THERAPY VERSUS SURGICAL INTERVENTION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF HERNIATED LUMBAR INTERVERTEBRAL-DISK [J].
SHVARTZMAN, L ;
WEINGARTEN, E ;
SHERRY, H ;
LEVIN, S ;
PERSAUD, A .
SPINE, 1992, 17 (02) :176-182