IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v27y2007i2p101-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Limitations of Acceptability Curves for Presenting Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Bas Groot Koerkamp

    (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Radiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • M.G. Myriam Hunink

    (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Radiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, m.hunink@erasmusmc.nl)

  • Theo Stijnen

    (Departments of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Radiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

  • James K. Hammitt

    (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • Karen M. Kuntz

    (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

  • Milton C. Weinstein

    (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts)

Abstract

Clinical journals increasingly illustrate uncertainty about the cost and effect of health care interventions using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). CEACs present the probability that each competing alternative is optimal for a range of values of the cost-effectiveness threshold. The objective of this article is to demonstrate the limitations of CEACs for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses. These limitations arise because the CEAC is unable to distinguish dramatically different joint distributions of incremental cost and effect. A CEAC is not sensitive to any change of the incremental joint distribution in the upper left and lower right quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane; neither is it sensitive to radial shift of the incremental joint distribution in the upper right and lower left quadrants. As a result, CEACs are ambiguous to risk-averse policy makers, inhibit integration with risk attitude, hamper synthesis with other evidence or opinions, and are unhelpful to assess the need for more research. Moreover, CEACs may mislead policy makers and can incorrectly suggest medical importance. Both for guiding immediate decisions and for prioritizing future research, these considerable drawbacks of CEACs should make us rethink their use in communicating uncertainty. As opposed to CEACs, confidence and credible intervals do not conflate magnitude and precision of the net benefit of health care interventions. Therefore, they allow (in)formal synthesis of study results with risk attitude and other evidence or opinions. Presenting the value of information in addition to these intervals allows policy makers to evaluate the need for more empirical research.

Suggested Citation

  • Bas Groot Koerkamp & M.G. Myriam Hunink & Theo Stijnen & James K. Hammitt & Karen M. Kuntz & Milton C. Weinstein, 2007. "Limitations of Acceptability Curves for Presenting Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(2), pages 101-111, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:2:p:101-111
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06297394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X06297394
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X06297394?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David M. Kent & A. Mark Fendrick & Kenneth M. Langa, 2004. "New and Dis-Improved: On the Evaluation and Use of Less Effective, Less Expensive Medical Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(3), pages 281-286, June.
    2. Claxton, Karl, 1999. "The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 341-364, June.
    3. William C. Black, 1990. "The CE Plane," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 212-214, August.
    4. Poole, C., 1987. "Beyond the confidence interval," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 77(2), pages 195-199.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nikki McCaffrey & Meera Agar & Janeane Harlum & Jonathon Karnon & David Currow & Simon Eckermann, 2015. "Better Informing Decision Making with Multiple Outcomes Cost-Effectiveness Analysis under Uncertainty in Cost-Disutility Space," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Dirk Müller & Eleanor Pullenayegum & Afschin Gandjour, 2015. "Impact of small study bias on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and value of information analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 219-223, March.
    3. Michal Jakubczyk, 2016. "Choosing from multiple alternatives in cost-effectiveness analysis with fuzzy willingness-to-pay/accept and uncertainty," KAE Working Papers 2016-006, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. te Velde, Saskia J. & Lennert Veerman, J. & Tak, Nannah I. & Bosmans, Judith E. & Klepp, Knut-Inge & Brug, Johannes, 2011. "Modeling the long term health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of two interventions promoting fruit and vegetable intake among schoolchildren," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 14-22, January.
    2. Michał Jakubczyk & Bogumił Kamiński, 2017. "Fuzzy approach to decision analysis with multiple criteria and uncertainty in health technology assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 301-324, April.
    3. Andrea Gabrio & Catrin Plumpton & Sube Banerjee & Baptiste Leurent, 2022. "Linear mixed models to handle missing at random data in trial‐based economic evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1276-1287, June.
    4. Eldon Spackman & Stewart Richmond & Mark Sculpher & Martin Bland & Stephen Brealey & Rhian Gabe & Ann Hopton & Ada Keding & Harriet Lansdown & Sara Perren & David Torgerson & Ian Watt & Hugh MacPherso, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Acupuncture, Counselling and Usual Care in Treating Patients with Depression: The Results of the ACUDep Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    6. Thomas Reinhold & Claudia Witt & Susanne Jena & Benno Brinkhaus & Stefan Willich, 2008. "Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture treatment in patients with osteoarthritis pain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(3), pages 209-219, August.
    7. Isaac Corro Ramos & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken & Maiwenn J. Al, 2013. "The Role of Value-of-Information Analysis in a Health Care Research Priority Setting," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 472-489, May.
    8. Jack Dowie, 2004. "Why cost‐effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 453-459, May.
    9. Maiwenn Al, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves Revisited," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 93-100, February.
    10. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    11. Mark Sculpher & Amiram Gafni, 2001. "Recognizing diversity in public preferences: The use of preference sub‐groups in cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 317-324, June.
    12. Elisa Sicuri & Silke Fernandes & Eusebio Macete & Raquel González & Ghyslain Mombo-Ngoma & Achille Massougbodgi & Salim Abdulla & August Kuwawenaruwa & Abraham Katana & Meghna Desai & Michel Cot & Mic, 2015. "Economic Evaluation of an Alternative Drug to Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine as Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Malaria in Pregnancy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    13. McKenna, Claire & Chalabi, Zaid & Epstein, David & Claxton, Karl, 2010. "Budgetary policies and available actions: A generalisation of decision rules for allocation and research decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 170-181, January.
    14. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    15. Charles F. Manski, 2022. "Patient‐centered appraisal of race‐free clinical risk assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(10), pages 2109-2114, October.
    16. Wilding, Sarah & Tsipa, Anastasia & Branley-Bell, Dawn & Greenwood, Darren C. & Vargas-Palacios, Armando & Yaziji, Nahel & Addison, Caroline & Kelly, Phil & Day, Fiona & Horsfall, Kate & Conner, Mark , 2020. "Cluster randomized controlled trial of volitional and motivational interventions to improve bowel cancer screening uptake: A population-level study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    17. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    18. Samer A. Kharroubi & Alan Brennan & Mark Strong, 2011. "Estimating Expected Value of Sample Information for Incomplete Data Models Using Bayesian Approximation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 839-852, November.
    19. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    20. Nadia Demarteau & Thomas Breuer & Baudouin Standaert, 2012. "Selecting a Mix of Prevention Strategies against Cervical Cancer for Maximum Efficiency with an Optimization Program," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 337-353, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:2:p:101-111. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.