Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Fuchs, B. Olberg, D. Panteli, M. Perleth, R. Busse (2017)
HTA of medical devices: Challenges and ideas for the future from a European perspective, 121
J. P. Grutters, T. Govers, J. Nijboer, M. Tummers, G. J. Van Der Wilt, M. M. Rovers (2019)
Problems and promises of health technologies: The role of early health economic modeling, 8
S. Ferson, L. R. Ginzburg (1996)
Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability, 54
J. M. Gablonsky, C. T. Kelley (2001)
A locally‐biased form of the DIRECT algorithm, 21
A. Briggs (2005)
Probabilistic analysis of cost‐effectiveness models: Statistical representation of parameter uncertainty, 8
M. F. Drummond (2020)
Modeling in early stages of technology development: Is an iterative approach needed?: Comment on problems and promises of health technologies: The role of early health economic modeling, 9
R. Iskandar (2021)
Probability bound analysis: A novel approach for quantifying parameter uncertainty in decision‐analytic modeling and cost‐effectiveness analysis, 40
P. Doubilet, C. B. Begg, M. C. Weinstein, P. Braun, B. J. McNeil (1985)
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation: A practical approach, 5
S. Hartz, J. John (2008)
Contribution of economic evaluation to decision making in early phases of product development: A methodological and empirical review, 24
M. J. Ijzerman, L. M. Steuten (2011)
Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access, 9
W. Deng, X. Yang, L. Zou, M. Wang, Y. Liu, Y. Li (2013)
An improved self‐adaptive differential evolution algorithm and its application, 128
C. Federici, L. Pecchia (2021)
Exploring the misalignment on the value of further research between payers and manufacturers. A case study on a novel total artificial heart
D.‐G. f. H. a. F. S. European Commission (2018)
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on health technology assessment and amending directive 2011/24
H. Grabowski, C. D. Mullins (1997)
Pharmacy benefit management, cost‐effectiveness analysis and drug formulary decisions, 45
J. G. Copeland, R. G. Smith, F. A. Arabia, P. E. Nolan, G. K. Sethi, P. H. Tsau, D. McClellan, M. J. Slepian (2004)
Cardiac replacement with a total artificial heart as a bridge to transplantation, 351
S. Ferson, L. Ginzburg, R. Akçakaya (1996)
Whereof one cannot speak: When input distributions are unknown
F. A. Arabía, R. S. Cantor, D. A. Koehl, V. Kasirajan, I. Gregoric, J. D. Moriguchi, F. Esmailian, D. Ramzy, J. S. Chung, L. S. Czer (2018)
Interagency registry for mechanically assisted circulatory support report on the total artificial heart, 37
T. M. By, P. Mohacsi, B. Gahl, A. Zittermann, T. Krabatsch, F. Gustafsson, P. Leprince, B. Meyns, I. Netuka, K. Caliskan, F. Musumeci, A. Vincentelli, R. Hetzer, J. Gummert (2018)
The European registry for patients with mechanical circulatory support (EUROMACS) of the European association for Cardio‐Thoracic surgery (EACTS): Second report, 53
B. Grigore, O. Ciani, F. Dams, C. Federici, S. deGroot, M. Möllenkamp, S. Rabbe, K. Shatrov, A. Zemplenyi, R. S. Taylor (2020)
Surrogate endpoints in health technology assessment: An international review of methodological guidelines
M. E. Backhouse, M. Wonder, E. Hornby, A. Kilburg, M. Drummond, F. K. Mayer (2011)
Early dialogue between the developers of new technologies and pricing and reimbursement agencies: A pilot study, 14
W. Feller (2008)
An introduction to probability theory and its applications, 2
O. Ciani, B. Wilcher, C. R. Blankart, M. Hatz, V. P. Rupel, R. S. Erker, Y. Varabyova, R. S. Taylor (2015)
Health technology assessment of medical devices: A survey of non‐European union agencies, 31
C.‐H. David, P. Lacoste, P. Nanjaiah, P. Bizouarn, T. Lepoivre, M. Michel, S. Pattier, C. Toquet, C. Périgaud, A. Mugniot, O. Al Habash, T. Petit, N. Groleau, B. Rozec, J. N. Trochu, J. C. Roussel, T. Sénage (2020)
A heart transplant after total artificial heart support: Initial and long‐term results, 58
A. G. Ellis, R. Iskandar, C. H. Schmid, J. B. Wong, T. A. Trikalinos (2020)
Active learning for efficiently training emulators of computationally expensive mathematical models, 39
M. J. IJzerman, H. Koffijberg, E. Fenwick, M. Krahn (2017)
Emerging use of early health technology assessment in medical product development: A scoping review of the literature, 35
S. Ferson, V. Kreinovich, L. Grinzburg, D. Myers, K. Sentz (2015)
Constructing probability boxes and Dempster‐Shafer structures
J. Bilcke, P. Beutels, M. Brisson, M. Jit (2011)
Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision‐analytic models: A practical guide, 31
A. H. Briggs, M. C. Weinstein, E. A. Fenwick, J. Karnon, M. J. Sculpher, A. D. Paltiel (2012)
Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: A report of the ISPOR‐SMDM modeling good research practices task Force working Group–6, 32
F. A. Arabía (2020)
The total artificial heart: Where are we?, 28
Health economic modeling of novel technology at the early stages of a product lifecycle has been used to identify technologies that are likely to be cost‐effective. Such early assessments are challenging due to the potentially limited amount of data. Modelers typically conduct uncertainty analyses to evaluate their effect on decision‐relevant outcomes. Current approaches, however, are limited in their scope of application and imposes an unverifiable assumption, that is, uncertainty can be precisely represented by a probability distribution. In the absence of reliable data, an approach that uses the fewest number of assumptions is desirable. This study introduces a generalized approach for quantifying parameter uncertainty, that is, probability bound analysis (PBA), that does not require a precise specification of a probability distribution in the context of early‐stage health economic modeling. We introduce the concept of a probability box (p‐box) as a measure of uncertainty without necessitating a precise probability distribution. We provide formulas for a p‐box given data on summary statistics of a parameter. We describe an approach to propagate p‐boxes into a model and provide step‐by‐step guidance on how to implement PBA. We conduct a case and examine the differences between the status‐quo and PBA approaches and their potential implications on decision‐making.
Health Economics – Wiley
Published: Sep 1, 2022
Keywords: cost‐effectiveness analysis; early‐stage health economic model; health economic evaluation; probabilistic sensitivity analysis; probability bound analysis; uncertainty quantification
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.