» Articles » PMID: 23807751

Good Practice Guidelines for the Use of Statistical Regression Models in Economic Evaluations

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2013 Jun 29
PMID 23807751
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Decision-analytic models (DAMs) used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of interventions are pivotal sources of evidence used in economic evaluations. Parameter estimates used in the DAMs are often based on the results of a regression analysis, but there is little guidance relating to these. This study had two objectives. The first was to identify the frequency of use of regression models in economic evaluations, the parameters they inform, and the amount of information reported to describe and support the analyses. The second objective was to provide guidance to improve practice in this area, based on the review. The review concentrated on a random sample of economic evaluations submitted to the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of its technology appraisal process. Based on these findings, recommendations for good practice were drafted, together with a checklist for critiquing reporting standards in this area. Based on the results of this review, statistical regression models are in widespread use in DAMs used to support economic evaluations, yet reporting of basic information, such as the sample size used and measures of uncertainty, is limited. Recommendations were formed about how reporting standards could be improved to better meet the needs of decision makers. These recommendations are summarised in a checklist, which may be used by both those conducting regression analyses and those critiquing them, to identify what should be reported when using the results of a regression analysis within a DAM.

Citing Articles

Health state utility values in patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Feng J, Zhang K, Dou L, Shi Z, Chen G, Li S Qual Life Res. 2024; 33(9):2321-2334.

PMID: 38824212 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03670-8.


Mapping of Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores to EQ-5D: algorithm to calculate utility values.

Shah R, Salek M, Finlay A, Kay R, Nixon S, Otwombe K Qual Life Res. 2024; 33(4):1107-1119.

PMID: 38402530 PMC: 10973087. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-023-03590-z.


Comprehensive Review of Methods to Assess Uncertainty in Health Economic Evaluations.

Otten T, Grimm S, Ramaekers B, Joore M Pharmacoeconomics. 2023; 41(6):619-632.

PMID: 36943674 PMC: 10163110. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01242-1.


Methodological guidance for the evaluation and updating of clinical prediction models: a systematic review.

Binuya M, Engelhardt E, Schats W, Schmidt M, Steyerberg E BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022; 22(1):316.

PMID: 36510134 PMC: 9742671. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-022-01801-8.


Mapping the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) to EQ-5D-5L.

Aghdaee M, Gu Y, Sinha K, Parkinson B, Sharma R, Cutler H Pharmacoeconomics. 2022; 41(2):187-198.

PMID: 36336773 PMC: 9883346. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01157-3.


References
1.
Ara R, Brazier J . Predicting the short form-6D preference-based index using the eight mean short form-36 health dimension scores: estimating preference-based health-related utilities when patient level data are not available. Value Health. 2008; 12(2):346-53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00428.x. View

2.
Dobrez D, Cella D, Pickard A, Lai J, Nickolov A . Estimation of patient preference-based utility weights from the functional assessment of cancer therapy - general. Value Health. 2007; 10(4):266-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00181.x. View

3.
Harrell Jr F, Lee K, Mark D . Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996; 15(4):361-87. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19960229)15:4<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4. View

4.
Sullivan P, Ghushchyan V . Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26(4):410-20. PMC: 2634296. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06290495. View

5.
Sullivan P, Slejko J, Sculpher M, Ghushchyan V . Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Making. 2011; 31(6):800-4. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11401031. View