净货币效益线与信息价值措施相结合,在不确定情况下展示经济评估结果。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Reza Yaesoubi, Natalia Kunst
{"title":"净货币效益线与信息价值措施相结合,在不确定情况下展示经济评估结果。","authors":"Reza Yaesoubi, Natalia Kunst","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241262343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods to present the result of cost-effectiveness analyses under parameter uncertainty include cost-effectiveness planes (CEPs), cost-effectiveness acceptability curves/frontier (CEACs/CEAF), expected loss curves (ELCs), and net monetary benefit (NMB) lines. We describe how NMB lines can be augmented to present NMB values that could be achieved by reducing or resolving parameter uncertainty. We evaluated the ability of these methods to correctly 1) identify the alternative with the highest expected NMB and 2) communicate the magnitude of parameter and decision uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We considered 4 hypothetical decision problems representing scenarios with high variance or correlated cost and effect estimates and alternatives with similar cost-effectiveness ratios. We used these decision problems to demonstrate the limitations of existing methods and the potential of augmented NMB lines to resolve these issues.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CEPs and CEACs/CEAF could falsely imply the lack of sufficient evidence to identify the optimal option if cost and effect estimates have high variance, are correlated across alternatives, or when alternatives have similar cost-effectiveness ratios. The augmented NMB lines and ELCs can correctly identify the option with the highest expected NMB and communicate the potential benefit of resolving uncertainties. Like ELCs, the augmented NMB lines provide information about the value of resolving parameter uncertainties, but augmented NMB lines may be easier to interpret for decision makers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis supports recommending the augment NMB lines as an important method to present the results of economic evaluation studies under parameter uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>The results of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) when the cost and effect estimates of alternatives are uncertain are commonly presented using cost-effectiveness planes (CEPs), cost-effectiveness acceptability curves/frontier (CEACs/CEAF), and expected loss curves (ELCs).Although currently not often used, net monetary benefit (NMB) lines could present the results of cost-effectiveness to identify the alternative with the highest expected NMB values given the current level of uncertainty. Furthermore, NMB lines can be augmented to 1) show metrics of value of information, which measure the value of additional research to reduce or eliminate the decision uncertainty, and 2) display the confidence intervals along the NMB lines to ensure that NMB values are estimated accurately using a sufficiently large number of parameter samples.Using several decision problems, we demonstrate the limitation of existing methods to present the results of CEAs under parameter uncertainty and how augmented NMB lines could resolve these issues.Our analysis supports recommending augmented NMB lines as an important method to present the results of CEA under uncertainty since they 1) correctly identify the alternative with the highest expected NMB value given the current evidence, 2) provide information about the potential value of additional research to improve the decision by reducing or resolving uncertainty in model parameters, 3) assist the analysis to visually ensure that enough parameter samples are used to estimate the expected NMB of alternatives, and 4) are easier to interpret for decision makers compared with other methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Net Monetary Benefit Lines Augmented with Value-of-Information Measures to Present the Results of Economic Evaluations under Uncertainty.\",\"authors\":\"Reza Yaesoubi, Natalia Kunst\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X241262343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods to present the result of cost-effectiveness analyses under parameter uncertainty include cost-effectiveness planes (CEPs), cost-effectiveness acceptability curves/frontier (CEACs/CEAF), expected loss curves (ELCs), and net monetary benefit (NMB) lines. We describe how NMB lines can be augmented to present NMB values that could be achieved by reducing or resolving parameter uncertainty. We evaluated the ability of these methods to correctly 1) identify the alternative with the highest expected NMB and 2) communicate the magnitude of parameter and decision uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We considered 4 hypothetical decision problems representing scenarios with high variance or correlated cost and effect estimates and alternatives with similar cost-effectiveness ratios. We used these decision problems to demonstrate the limitations of existing methods and the potential of augmented NMB lines to resolve these issues.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CEPs and CEACs/CEAF could falsely imply the lack of sufficient evidence to identify the optimal option if cost and effect estimates have high variance, are correlated across alternatives, or when alternatives have similar cost-effectiveness ratios. The augmented NMB lines and ELCs can correctly identify the option with the highest expected NMB and communicate the potential benefit of resolving uncertainties. Like ELCs, the augmented NMB lines provide information about the value of resolving parameter uncertainties, but augmented NMB lines may be easier to interpret for decision makers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis supports recommending the augment NMB lines as an important method to present the results of economic evaluation studies under parameter uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>The results of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) when the cost and effect estimates of alternatives are uncertain are commonly presented using cost-effectiveness planes (CEPs), cost-effectiveness acceptability curves/frontier (CEACs/CEAF), and expected loss curves (ELCs).Although currently not often used, net monetary benefit (NMB) lines could present the results of cost-effectiveness to identify the alternative with the highest expected NMB values given the current level of uncertainty. Furthermore, NMB lines can be augmented to 1) show metrics of value of information, which measure the value of additional research to reduce or eliminate the decision uncertainty, and 2) display the confidence intervals along the NMB lines to ensure that NMB values are estimated accurately using a sufficiently large number of parameter samples.Using several decision problems, we demonstrate the limitation of existing methods to present the results of CEAs under parameter uncertainty and how augmented NMB lines could resolve these issues.Our analysis supports recommending augmented NMB lines as an important method to present the results of CEA under uncertainty since they 1) correctly identify the alternative with the highest expected NMB value given the current evidence, 2) provide information about the potential value of additional research to improve the decision by reducing or resolving uncertainty in model parameters, 3) assist the analysis to visually ensure that enough parameter samples are used to estimate the expected NMB of alternatives, and 4) are easier to interpret for decision makers compared with other methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241262343\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241262343","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在参数不确定的情况下呈现成本效益分析结果的方法包括成本效益平面 (CEP)、成本效益可接受性曲线/前沿 (CEAC/CEAF)、预期损失曲线 (ELC) 和净货币效益线 (NMB)。我们介绍了如何对净货币效益线进行扩充,以呈现通过减少或解决参数不确定性而实现的净货币效益值。我们评估了这些方法在以下方面的能力:1)正确识别预期净货币价值最高的替代方案;2)传达参数和决策不确定性的大小:我们考虑了 4 个假设的决策问题,这些问题代表了具有高差异或相关成本和效果估算的方案,以及具有相似成本效益比的替代方案。我们利用这些决策问题来证明现有方法的局限性以及增强型 NMB 线路解决这些问题的潜力:结果:如果成本和效果估算值存在较大差异、不同替代方案之间存在相关性或替代方案具有相似的成本效益比,那么 CEP 和 CEAC/CEAF 可能会错误地暗示缺乏足够的证据来确定最优方案。增强的 NMB 线和 ELC 可以正确识别预期 NMB 最高的方案,并传达解决不确定性问题的潜在益处。与等效线一样,增强型净现值线也提供了有关解决参数不确定性的价值的信息,但增强型净现值线可能更容易为决策者所解释:我们的分析支持将增强 NMB 线作为在参数不确定的情况下展示经济评估研究结果的一种重要方法:当替代品的成本和效果估计值不确定时,成本效益分析 (CEA) 的结果通常使用成本效益平面 (CEP)、成本效益可接受性曲线/前沿 (CEAC/CEAF) 和预期损失曲线 (ELC) 来呈现。此外,还可以对净货币效益线进行扩充,以便:1)显示信息价值指标,衡量为减少或消除决策不确定性而进行的额外研究的价值;2)沿净货币效益线显示置信区间,确保使用足够多的参数样本准确估算净货币效益值。我们的分析支持将增强型净现值线作为不确定性条件下呈现 CEA 结果的重要方法,因为它们:1)在当前证据条件下正确识别出预期净现值最高的替代方案;2)提供有关额外研究的潜在价值的信息,通过减少或解决模型参数的不确定性来改进决策;3)协助分析,直观地确保使用足够多的参数样本来估算替代方案的预期净现值;4)与其他方法相比,更易于决策者解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Net Monetary Benefit Lines Augmented with Value-of-Information Measures to Present the Results of Economic Evaluations under Uncertainty.

Background: Methods to present the result of cost-effectiveness analyses under parameter uncertainty include cost-effectiveness planes (CEPs), cost-effectiveness acceptability curves/frontier (CEACs/CEAF), expected loss curves (ELCs), and net monetary benefit (NMB) lines. We describe how NMB lines can be augmented to present NMB values that could be achieved by reducing or resolving parameter uncertainty. We evaluated the ability of these methods to correctly 1) identify the alternative with the highest expected NMB and 2) communicate the magnitude of parameter and decision uncertainty.

Methods: We considered 4 hypothetical decision problems representing scenarios with high variance or correlated cost and effect estimates and alternatives with similar cost-effectiveness ratios. We used these decision problems to demonstrate the limitations of existing methods and the potential of augmented NMB lines to resolve these issues.

Results: CEPs and CEACs/CEAF could falsely imply the lack of sufficient evidence to identify the optimal option if cost and effect estimates have high variance, are correlated across alternatives, or when alternatives have similar cost-effectiveness ratios. The augmented NMB lines and ELCs can correctly identify the option with the highest expected NMB and communicate the potential benefit of resolving uncertainties. Like ELCs, the augmented NMB lines provide information about the value of resolving parameter uncertainties, but augmented NMB lines may be easier to interpret for decision makers.

Conclusions: Our analysis supports recommending the augment NMB lines as an important method to present the results of economic evaluation studies under parameter uncertainty.

Highlights: The results of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) when the cost and effect estimates of alternatives are uncertain are commonly presented using cost-effectiveness planes (CEPs), cost-effectiveness acceptability curves/frontier (CEACs/CEAF), and expected loss curves (ELCs).Although currently not often used, net monetary benefit (NMB) lines could present the results of cost-effectiveness to identify the alternative with the highest expected NMB values given the current level of uncertainty. Furthermore, NMB lines can be augmented to 1) show metrics of value of information, which measure the value of additional research to reduce or eliminate the decision uncertainty, and 2) display the confidence intervals along the NMB lines to ensure that NMB values are estimated accurately using a sufficiently large number of parameter samples.Using several decision problems, we demonstrate the limitation of existing methods to present the results of CEAs under parameter uncertainty and how augmented NMB lines could resolve these issues.Our analysis supports recommending augmented NMB lines as an important method to present the results of CEA under uncertainty since they 1) correctly identify the alternative with the highest expected NMB value given the current evidence, 2) provide information about the potential value of additional research to improve the decision by reducing or resolving uncertainty in model parameters, 3) assist the analysis to visually ensure that enough parameter samples are used to estimate the expected NMB of alternatives, and 4) are easier to interpret for decision makers compared with other methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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