Skip to main content
Log in

Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Models: Determining Model Convergence in Cohort Models

  • Practical Application
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) demonstrates the parameter uncertainty in a decision problem. The technique involves sampling parameters from their respective distributions (rather than simply using mean/median parameter values). Guidance in the literature, and from health technology assessment bodies, on the number of simulations that should be performed suggests a ‘sufficient number’, or until ‘convergence’, which is seldom defined. The objective of this tutorial is to describe possible outcomes from PSA, discuss appropriate levels of accuracy, and present guidance by which an analyst can determine if a sufficient number of simulations have been conducted, such that results are considered to have converged. The proposed approach considers the variance of the outcomes of interest in cost-effectiveness analysis as a function of the number of simulations. A worked example of the technique is presented using results from a published model, with recommendations made on best practice. While the technique presented remains essentially arbitrary, it does give a mechanism for assessing the level of simulation error, and thus represents an advance over current practice of a round number of simulations with no assessment of model convergence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Briggs AH, Gray A. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(2):1–134.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baio G, Dawid AP. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis in health economics. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24:615–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 4th edn. 2017. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf.

  4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. NICE; 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword.

  5. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EAL, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-6. Value Health. 2012;15:835–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Elvidge J, Bullement A, Hatswell AJ. Cost effectiveness of characterised chondrocyte implantation for treatment of cartilage defects of the knee in the UK. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34:1145–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, Rutten FFH. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3:309–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barton GR, Briggs AH, Fenwick EAL. Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI). Value Health. 2008;11:886–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, Briggs A, Akehurst R, Buxton M, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ. 2005;14:339–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zorginstituut Nederland. Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. Guideline—National Health Care Institute [cited 21 May 2017]. 2016. https://english.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publications/reports/2016/06/16/guideline-for-economic-evaluations-in-healthcare.

  11. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ. 1997;6:327–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Brien BJ, Briggs AH. Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: an introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 2002;11:455–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(2 Suppl):S68–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zethraeus N, Johannesson M, Jönsson B, Löthgren M, Tambour M. Advantages of using the net-benefit approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies. PharmacoEconomics. 2003;21:39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fenwick E, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in the dock: case not proven? Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:93–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ara R, Blake L, Gray L, Hernández M, Crowther M, Dunkley A, et al. What is the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using drugs in treating obese patients in primary care? A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(5):iii–xiv (1–195).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Naltrexone-bupropion (prolonged release) for managing overweight and obesity [ID757]. Company evidence submission [cited 16 Sep 2017]. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-tag486/documents/appraisal-consultation-document-2.

  18. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Colorectal cancer (metastatic): trifluridine with tipiracil hydrochloride, after standard therapy [ID876]. Company evidence submission [cited 16 Sep 2017]. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta405/documents/committee-papers.

  19. Scottish Medicines Consortium. Working with SMC—a guide for manufacturers. Glasgow: Scottish Medicines Consortium; 2017. p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Iglehart D. Simulating stable stochastic systems, V: comparison of ratio estimators. Nav Res Logist Q. 1975;22:553–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jackknife-After-Bootstrap Efron B, Errors Standard, Functions Influence. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1992;54:83–127.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Strong M, Oakley JE, Brennan A. Estimating multiparameter partial expected value of perfect information from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample: a nonparametric regression approach. Med Decis Mak. 2014;34:311–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Heath A, Manolopoulou I, Baio G. A review of methods for analysis of the expected value of Information. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37:747–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The content of this manuscript was agreed by AJH, ABu, ABr, MP and MDS. The first draft was prepared by AJH and ABu, and the manuscript was revised by AJH, ABu, ABr, MP and MDS. The method proposed was derived by MDS, ABr, ABu, AJH and MP, and the downloadable workbook was prepared by ABu.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony J. Hatswell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Anthony James Hatswell, Ash Bullement, and Mike Paulden report no conflicts of interest. Andrew Briggs and Matthew D. Stevenson have previously published on probabilistic analysis but have no financial conflicts of interest.

Funding

No funding was received for this manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSM 1843 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hatswell, A.J., Bullement, A., Briggs, A. et al. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Models: Determining Model Convergence in Cohort Models. PharmacoEconomics 36, 1421–1426 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0697-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0697-3

Navigation