Econometric Issues in Prospective Economic Evaluations Alongside Clinical Trials: Combining the Nonparametric Bootstrap With Methods That Address Missing Data.

IF 5.2 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ali Jalali, Rulla M Tamimi, Sterling M McPherson, Sean M Murphy
{"title":"Econometric Issues in Prospective Economic Evaluations Alongside Clinical Trials: Combining the Nonparametric Bootstrap With Methods That Address Missing Data.","authors":"Ali Jalali,&nbsp;Rulla M Tamimi,&nbsp;Sterling M McPherson,&nbsp;Sean M Murphy","doi":"10.1093/epirev/mxac006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prospective economic evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials have become an increasingly popular approach in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a public health initiative or treatment intervention. These types of economic studies provide improved internal validity and accuracy of cost and effectiveness estimates of health interventions and, compared with simulation or decision-analytic models, have the advantage of jointly observing health and economics outcomes of trial participants. However, missing data due to incomplete response or patient attrition, and sampling uncertainty are common concerns in econometric analysis of clinical trials. Missing data are a particular problem for comparative effectiveness trials of substance use disorder interventions. Multiple imputation and inverse probability weighting are 2 widely recommended methods to address missing data bias, and the nonparametric bootstrap is recommended to address uncertainty in predicted mean cost and effectiveness between trial interventions. Although these methods have been studied extensively by themselves, little is known about how to appropriately combine them and about the potential pitfalls and advantages of different approaches. We provide a review of statistical methods used in 29 economic evaluations of substance use disorder intervention identified from 4 published systematic reviews and a targeted search of the literature. We evaluate how each study addressed missing data bias, whether the recommended nonparametric bootstrap was used, how these 2 methods were combined, and conclude with recommendations for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50510,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10362933/pdf/mxac006.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxac006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Prospective economic evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials have become an increasingly popular approach in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a public health initiative or treatment intervention. These types of economic studies provide improved internal validity and accuracy of cost and effectiveness estimates of health interventions and, compared with simulation or decision-analytic models, have the advantage of jointly observing health and economics outcomes of trial participants. However, missing data due to incomplete response or patient attrition, and sampling uncertainty are common concerns in econometric analysis of clinical trials. Missing data are a particular problem for comparative effectiveness trials of substance use disorder interventions. Multiple imputation and inverse probability weighting are 2 widely recommended methods to address missing data bias, and the nonparametric bootstrap is recommended to address uncertainty in predicted mean cost and effectiveness between trial interventions. Although these methods have been studied extensively by themselves, little is known about how to appropriately combine them and about the potential pitfalls and advantages of different approaches. We provide a review of statistical methods used in 29 economic evaluations of substance use disorder intervention identified from 4 published systematic reviews and a targeted search of the literature. We evaluate how each study addressed missing data bias, whether the recommended nonparametric bootstrap was used, how these 2 methods were combined, and conclude with recommendations for future research.

与临床试验一起的前瞻性经济评估中的计量经济学问题:结合非参数Bootstrap与解决缺失数据的方法。
与临床试验同时进行的前瞻性经济评估已成为评估公共卫生倡议或治疗干预措施成本效益的一种日益流行的方法。这些类型的经济研究提高了卫生干预措施成本和有效性估计的内部有效性和准确性,与模拟或决策分析模型相比,具有联合观察试验参与者的健康和经济结果的优势。然而,在临床试验的计量经济学分析中,由于反应不完全或患者流失而导致的数据缺失和抽样不确定性是常见的问题。缺少数据是物质使用障碍干预的比较有效性试验的一个特殊问题。多重插值和逆概率加权是解决缺失数据偏差的两种广泛推荐的方法,而非参数自举被推荐用于解决试验干预之间预测平均成本和有效性的不确定性。虽然这些方法本身已被广泛研究,但人们对如何适当地将它们结合起来以及不同方法的潜在缺陷和优势知之甚少。我们回顾了从4篇已发表的系统综述和有针对性的文献检索中确定的29项物质使用障碍干预经济评估中使用的统计方法。我们评估了每项研究是如何解决缺失数据偏差的,是否使用了推荐的非参数bootstrap,这两种方法是如何结合的,并总结了对未来研究的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemiologic Reviews
Epidemiologic Reviews 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: Epidemiologic Reviews is a leading review journal in public health. Published once a year, issues collect review articles on a particular subject. Recent issues have focused on The Obesity Epidemic, Epidemiologic Research on Health Disparities, and Epidemiologic Approaches to Global Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信