IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i1p82-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Intraindividual Variation in Disease Progression and the Ensuing Tight Window of Opportunity Affect Estimation of Screening Benefits?

Author

Listed:
  • Hendrik Koffijberg

    (Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands, h.koffijberg@umcutrecht.nl)

  • Gabriel Rinkel

    (Department of Neurology, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Erik Buskens

    (Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Background . The effects of variation in disease progression between individuals on the effectiveness of screening have been assessed extensively in the literature. For several diseases, progression may also vary within individuals over time. The authors study the effects of intraindividual variation and the combined effects of inter- and intraindividual variation in disease progression on the effectiveness of screening. Methods . The authors investigated the risk reduction of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) achieved by screening for intracranial aneurysms in a simulation study as a function of the inter- and intraindividual variation in the risk of aneurysm rupture. They also extended a previously constructed Markov model for the cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for new aneurysms in patients with clipped aneurysms after SAH. A time-varying risk of aneurysm rupture was introduced, and the influence of this variation on cost-effectiveness was assessed. Results . The risk reduction provided by screening decreased with increasing intraindividual variation in disease progression. The expected number of prevented instances of SAH was overestimated by 58% in this simulation study when high degrees of inter- and intraindividual variation were present. Interindividual variation alone resulted in up to 33% overestimation and intraindividual variation in up to 43% overestimation. In the extended Markov model, screening benefits were overestimated by 24% when a high degree of intraindividual variation was present but ignored. Conclusions . If intraindividual variation in disease progression is ignored in decision models, subsequent cost-effectiveness analyses of screening strategies will overestimate the benefits provided by screening. This bias is comparable to, but partially independent of, the bias caused by ignoring interindividual heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Hendrik Koffijberg & Gabriel Rinkel & Erik Buskens, 2009. "Do Intraindividual Variation in Disease Progression and the Ensuing Tight Window of Opportunity Affect Estimation of Screening Benefits?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(1), pages 82-90, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:1:p:82-90
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08322012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08322012
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08322012?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. R. Henderson & P. Oman, 1999. "Effect of frailty on marginal regression estimates in survival analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 61(2), pages 367-379, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, 2020. "Multidimensional Mortality Selection: Why Individual Dimensions of Frailty Don’t Act Like Frailty," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 57(2), pages 747-777, April.
    2. Virginia Zarulli, 2016. "Unobserved Heterogeneity of Frailty in the Analysis of Socioeconomic Differences in Health and Mortality," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 32(1), pages 55-72, February.
    3. Marcelo Resende & Vicente Cardoso & Luis Otávio Façanha, 2016. "Determinants of survival of newly created SMEs in the Brazilian manufacturing industry: an econometric study," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1255-1274, June.
    4. Bowles, Roger Arthur & Florackis, Chrisostomos, 2007. "Duration of the time to reconviction: Evidence from UK prisoner discharge data," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 365-378.
    5. Andreas Wienke, 2003. "Frailty models," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2003-032, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    6. Il Do Ha & Maengseok Noh & Youngjo Lee, 2010. "Bias Reduction of Likelihood Estimators in Semiparametric Frailty Models," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 37(2), pages 307-320, June.
    7. María-Dolores Huete-Morales & Esteban Navarrete-Álvarez & María-Jesús Rosales-Moreno & María-José Del-Moral-Ávila & José-Manuel Quesada-Rubio, 2020. "Modelling the survival function of the Spanish population by the Wong–Tsui model with the incorporation of frailty and covariates," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 151-163, August.
    8. Alex Mota & Eder A. Milani & Vinicius F. Calsavara & Vera L. D. Tomazella & Jeremias Leão & Pedro L. Ramos & Paulo H. Ferreira & Francisco Louzada, 2021. "Weighted Lindley frailty model: estimation and application to lung cancer data," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 561-587, October.
    9. Yu, Binbing & Peng, Yingwei, 2008. "Mixture cure models for multivariate survival data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 1524-1532, January.
    10. Niels Keiding & Katrine Lykke Albertsen & Helene Charlotte Rytgaard & Anne Lyngholm Sørensen, 2019. "Prevalent cohort studies and unobserved heterogeneity," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 712-738, October.
    11. Lei Liu & Xuelin Huang, 2009. "Joint analysis of correlated repeated measures and recurrent events processes in the presence of death, with application to a study on acquired immune deficiency syndrome," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(1), pages 65-81, February.
    12. Yang-Jin Kim, 2006. "Regression Analysis of Doubly Censored Failure Time Data with Frailty," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 458-464, June.
    13. repec:gig:joupla:v:6:y:2014:i:2:p:3-38 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Alex Mota & Eder A. Milani & Jeremias Leão & Pedro L. Ramos & Paulo H. Ferreira & Oilson G. Junior & Vera L. D. Tomazella & Francisco Louzada, 2023. "A new cure rate frailty regression model based on a weighted Lindley distribution applied to stomach cancer data," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 32(3), pages 883-909, September.
    15. Robin Henderson & Ralitsa Mihaylova & Paul Oman, 2019. "A dual frailty model for lifetime analysis in maritime transportation," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 739-756, October.

    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:29:y:2009:i:1:p:82-90. 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.