IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v17y2019i4d10.1007_s40258-019-00471-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica

Author

Listed:
  • James A. Hall

    (Keele University)

  • Kika Konstantinou

    (Keele University
    Haywood Hospital, Midlands Partnership Foundation Trust)

  • Martyn Lewis

    (Keele University
    Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University)

  • Raymond Oppong

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Reuben Ogollah

    (Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham)

  • Sue Jowett

    (Keele University
    University of Birmingham)

Abstract

Background Low back pain (LBP) and sciatica place significant burden on individuals and healthcare systems, with societal costs alone likely to be in excess of £15 billion. Two recent systematic reviews for LBP and sciatica identified a shortage of modelling studies in both conditions. Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to document existing model-based economic evaluations for the treatment and management of both conditions; critically appraise current modelling techniques, analytical methods, data inputs, and structure, using narrative synthesis; and identify unresolved methodological problems and gaps in the literature. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted whereby 6512 records were extracted from 11 databases, with no date limits imposed. Studies were abstracted according to a predesigned protocol, whereby they must be economic evaluations that employed an economic decision model and considered any management approach for LBP and sciatica. Study abstraction was initially performed by one reviewer who removed duplicates and screened titles to remove irrelevant studies. Overall, 133 potential studies for inclusion were then screened independently by other reviewers. Consensus was reached between reviewers regarding final inclusion. Results Twenty-one publications of 20 unique models were included in the review, five of which were modelling studies in LBP and 16 in sciatica. Results revealed a poor standard of modelling in both conditions, particularly regarding modelling techniques, analytical methods, and data quality. Specific issues relate to inappropriate representation of both conditions in terms of health states, insufficient time horizons, and use of inappropriate utility values. Conclusion High-quality modelling studies, which reflect modelling best practice, as well as contemporary clinical understandings of both conditions, are required to enhance the economic evidence for treatments for both conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • James A. Hall & Kika Konstantinou & Martyn Lewis & Raymond Oppong & Reuben Ogollah & Sue Jowett, 2019. "Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 467-491, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00471-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00471-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-019-00471-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-019-00471-w?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark J. Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Mike Drummond & Chris McCabe, 2006. "Whither trial‐based economic evaluation for health care decision making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 677-687, July.
    2. Jonathan Karnon, 2003. "Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 837-848, October.
    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. Schulenburg J.-Matthias Graf von der & Vauth Christoph, 2007. "Nach welchen ökonomischen Methoden sollten Gesundheitsleistungen in Deutschland evaluiert werden? / According to Which Economic Methods Should Health Care Services Become Evaluated in Germany?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 227(5-6), pages 787-806, October.
    2. Lois G. Kim & Simon G. Thompson, 2010. "Uncertainty and validation of health economic decision models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 43-55, January.
    3. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    4. Topuz, Kazim & Urban, Timothy L. & Yildirim, Mehmet B., 2024. "A Markovian score model for evaluating provider performance for continuity of care—An explainable analytics approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 317(2), pages 341-351.
    5. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Jodi Gray, 2012. "A proposed model for economic evaluations of major depressive disorder," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 501-510, August.
    6. Leslie Anne Campbell & John T. Blake & George Kephart & Eva Grunfeld & Donald MacIntosh, 2017. "Understanding the Effects of Competition for Constrained Colonoscopy Services with the Introduction of Population-level Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(2), pages 253-263, February.
    7. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    8. Matthew J. Glover & Edmund Jones & Katya L. Masconi & Michael J. Sweeting & Simon G. Thompson, 2018. "Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 439-451, May.
    9. Ana Sofia Oliveira Gonçalves & Dimitra Panteli & Lars Neeb & Tobias Kurth & Annette Aigner, 2022. "HIT-6 and EQ-5D-5L in patients with migraine: assessment of common latent constructs and development of a mapping algorithm," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(1), pages 47-57, February.
    10. K Cooper & S C Brailsford & R Davies, 2007. "Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(2), pages 168-176, February.
    11. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Ferrari, Giulia & Torres-Rueda, Sergio & Michaels-Igbokwe, Christine & Watts, Charlotte & Jewkes, Rachel & Vassall, Anna, 2019. "Economic evaluation of public health interventions: an application to interventions for the prevention of violence against women and girls implemented by the “what works to prevent violence against wo," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103639, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    14. Sanjib Saha & Katarina Steen Carlsson & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Margareta K Eriksson & Lars Hagberg & Mats Eliasson & Pia Johansson, 2013. "Are Lifestyle Interventions in Primary Care Cost-Effective? – An Analysis Based on a Markov Model, Differences-In-Differences Approach and the Swedish Björknäs Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, 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. L. B. Standfield & T. A. Comans & P. A. Scuffham, 2017. "An empirical comparison of Markov cohort modeling and discrete event simulation in a capacity-constrained health care setting," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(1), pages 33-47, January.
    17. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    18. Dixon, Padraig & Harrison, Sean & Hollingworth, William & Davies, Neil M. & Davey Smith, George, 2022. "Estimating the causal effect of liability to disease on healthcare costs using Mendelian Randomization," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    19. Candio, Paolo & Meads, David & Hill, Andrew J. & Bojke, Laura, 2020. "Modelling the impact of physical activity on public health: A review and critique," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1155-1164.
    20. Hareth Al-Janabi & Jenny Coles & John Copping & Nishit Dhanji & Carol McLoughlin & Jacky Murphy & Jean Nicholls, 2021. "Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 421-427, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00471-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.