IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i3p308-320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Efficient Estimator for the Expected Value of Sample Information

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas A. Menzies

Abstract

Background. Conventional estimators for the expected value of sample information (EVSI) are computationally expensive or limited to specific analytic scenarios. I describe a novel approach that allows efficient EVSI computation for a wide range of study designs and is applicable to models of arbitrary complexity. Methods. The posterior parameter distribution produced by a hypothetical study is estimated by reweighting existing draws from the prior distribution. EVSI can then be estimated using a conventional probabilistic sensitivity analysis, with no further model evaluations and with a simple sequence of calculations (Algorithm 1). A refinement to this approach (Algorithm 2) uses smoothing techniques to improve accuracy. Algorithm performance was compared with the conventional EVSI estimator (2-level Monte Carlo integration) and an alternative developed by Brennan and Kharroubi (BK), in a cost-effectiveness case study. Results. Compared with the conventional estimator, Algorithm 2 exhibited a root mean square error (RMSE) 8%–17% lower, with far fewer model evaluations (3–4 orders of magnitude). Algorithm 1 produced results similar to those of the conventional estimator when study evidence was weak but underestimated EVSI when study evidence was strong. Compared with the BK estimator, the proposed algorithms reduced RSME by 18%–38% in most analytic scenarios, with 40 times fewer model evaluations. Algorithm 1 performed poorly in the context of strong study evidence. All methods were sensitive to the number of samples in the outer loop of the simulation. Conclusions. The proposed algorithms remove two major challenges for estimating EVSI—the difficulty of estimating the posterior parameter distribution given hypothetical study data and the need for many model evaluations to obtain stable and unbiased results. These approaches make EVSI estimation feasible for a wide range of analytic scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas A. Menzies, 2016. "An Efficient Estimator for the Expected Value of Sample Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 308-320, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:3:p:308-320
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15583495
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15583495
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15583495?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. Alan Brennan & Samer A. Kharroubi, 2007. "Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1205-1225, November.
    2. Alan Brennan & Samer A. Kharroubi, 2007. "Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1205-1225.
    3. Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2007. "Expected value of information and decision making in HTA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 195-209, February.
    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. Anna Heath & Mark Strong & David Glynn & Natalia Kunst & Nicky J. Welton & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2022. "Simulating Study Data to Support Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations: A Tutorial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 143-155, February.

    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. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    2. Mark Strong & Jeremy E. Oakley & Alan Brennan & Penny Breeze, 2015. "Estimating the Expected Value of Sample Information Using the Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Sample," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 570-583, July.
    3. Hawre Jalal & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Karen M. Kuntz, 2015. "Computing Expected Value of Partial Sample Information from Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis Using Linear Regression Metamodeling," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 584-595, July.
    4. Andrew Willan & Simon Eckermann, 2012. "Value of Information and Pricing New Healthcare Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 447-459, June.
    5. Hendrik Koffijberg & Claire Rothery & Kalipso Chalkidou & Janneke Grutters, 2018. "Value of Information Choices that Influence Estimates: A Systematic Review of Prevailing Considerations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 888-900, October.
    6. Anna Heath & Ioanna Manolopoulou & Gianluca Baio, 2019. "Estimating the Expected Value of Sample Information across Different Sample Sizes Using Moment Matching and Nonlinear Regression," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(4), pages 347-359, May.
    7. Hawre Jalal & Fernando Alarid-Escudero, 2018. "A Gaussian Approximation Approach for Value of Information Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(2), pages 174-188, February.
    8. Oakley, Jeremy E. & Brennan, Alan & Tappenden, Paul & Chilcott, Jim, 2010. "Simulation sample sizes for Monte Carlo partial EVPI calculations," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 468-477, May.
    9. Anna Heath & Natalia Kunst & Christopher Jackson & Mark Strong & Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert & Gianluca Baio & Nicolas A. Menzies & Hawre Jalal, 2020. "Calculating the Expected Value of Sample Information in Practice: Considerations from 3 Case Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(3), pages 314-326, April.
    10. Anna Heath & Ioanna Manolopoulou & Gianluca Baio, 2018. "Efficient Monte Carlo Estimation of the Expected Value of Sample Information Using Moment Matching," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(2), pages 163-173, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Jonathan Karnon & Jill Carlton & Carolyn Czoski-Murray & Kevin Smith, 2009. "Informing disinvestment through cost-effectiveness modelling," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, March.
    13. Stefano Conti & Karl Claxton, 2008. "Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design," Working Papers 038cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    14. Penny Breeze & Alan Brennan, 2015. "Valuing Trial Designs from a Pharmaceutical Perspective Using Value‐Based Pricing," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(11), pages 1468-1482, November.
    15. Zafar Zafari & Kristian Thorlund & J. FitzGerald & Carlo Marra & Mohsen Sadatsafavi, 2014. "Network vs. Pairwise Meta-Analyses: A Case Study of the Impact of an Evidence-Synthesis Paradigm on Value of Information Outcomes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 995-1004, October.
    16. Paolo Pertile, 2009. "An extension of the real option approach to the evaluation of health care technologies: the case of positron emission tomography," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 317-332, September.
    17. Manuel Gomes & Edmond S.-W. Ng & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & James Carpenter & Simon G. Thompson, 2012. "Developing Appropriate Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cluster Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 350-361, March.
    18. Simon Eckermann & Andrew Willan, 2011. "Presenting Evidence and Summary Measures to Best Inform Societal Decisions When Comparing Multiple Strategies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(7), pages 563-577, July.
    19. Bognar, Katalin & Romley, John A. & Bae, Jay P. & Murray, James & Chou, Jacquelyn W. & Lakdawalla, Darius N., 2017. "The role of imperfect surrogate endpoint information in drug approval and reimbursement decisions," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    20. 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.

    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:36:y:2016:i:3:p:308-320. 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.