IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v28y2019i6p801-807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond the cost‐effectiveness acceptability curve: The appropriateness of rank probabilities for presenting the results of economic evaluation in multiple technology appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • David Epstein

Abstract

The cost‐effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) shows the probability that an option ranks first for net benefit. Where more than two options are under consideration, the CEAC offers only a partial picture of the decision uncertainty. This paper discusses the appropriateness of showing the full set of rank probabilities for reporting the results of economic evaluation in multiple technology appraisal (MTA). A case study is used to illustrate the calculation of rank probabilities and associated metrics, based on Monte Carlo simulations from a decision model. Rank probabilities are often used to show uncertainty in the results of network meta‐analysis, but until now have not been used for economic evaluation. They may be useful decision‐making tools to complement the CEAC in specific MTA contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • David Epstein, 2019. "Beyond the cost‐effectiveness acceptability curve: The appropriateness of rank probabilities for presenting the results of economic evaluation in multiple technology appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 801-807, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:28:y:2019:i:6:p:801-807
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3884
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3884?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. Claire Rothery & Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & David Epstein & Rosanna Tarricone & Mark Sculpher, 2017. "Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26, pages 109-123, February.
    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. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    4. Danzon, Patricia M & Chao, Li-Wei, 2000. "Does Regulation Drive out Competition in Pharmaceutical Markets?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 311-357, October.
    5. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Response to commentaries on “Reasonable patient care under uncertainty”," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1431-1434, 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. 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.
    2. Per Magnus Mæhle & Ingrid Kristine Small Hanto & Sigbjørn Smeland, 2020. "Practicing Integrated Care Pathways in Norwegian Hospitals: Coordination through Industrialized Standardization, Value Chains, and Quality Management or an Organizational Equivalent to Improvised Jazz," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-32, December.
    3. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    4. Charles F. Manski, 2023. "Using Limited Trial Evidence to Credibly Choose Treatment Dosage when Efficacy and Adverse Effects Weakly Increase with Dose," NBER Working Papers 31305, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Greve, Jane & Kristensen, Søren Rud & Lydiksen, Nis, 2023. "Patient and peer: Guideline design and expert response," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. John Mullahy, 2018. "Treatment Effects with Multiple Outcomes," NBER Working Papers 25307, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Anirban Basu, 2018. "Comment: Manski's views on patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1422-1424, October.
    8. Neil Christy & A. E. Kowalski, 2024. "Starting Small: Prioritizing Safety over Efficacy in Randomized Experiments Using the Exact Finite Sample Likelihood," Papers 2407.18206, arXiv.org.
    9. Valentyn Litvin, 2020. "When ignorance is bliss: Intentional agnosticism in drug approval," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 185-194, February.
    10. Emma McIntosh, 2018. "Comment: Decentralized decision making through adaptive minimax regret—Complex yet intuitively appealing," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1428-1430, October.
    11. David Glynn & John Giardina & Julia Hatamyar & Ankur Pandya & Marta Soares & Noemi Kreif, 2024. "Integrating decision modeling and machine learning to inform treatment stratification," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(8), pages 1772-1792, August.
    12. Andrews, Brendon P., 2023. "Economic Evaluation under Ambiguity and Structural Uncertainties," Working Papers 2023-9, University of Alberta, Department of Economics, revised 05 Apr 2024.
    13. Amanda Dahlstrand, 2022. "Defying distance? The provision of services in the digital age," CEP Discussion Papers dp1889, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    14. John Mullahy, 2021. "Discovering treatment effectiveness via median treatment effects—Applications to COVID‐19 clinical trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1050-1069, May.
    15. Juerg Schweri, 2021. "Predicting polytomous career choices in healthcare using probabilistic expectations data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 544-563, March.
    16. Luca Panzone & Guy Garrod & Felice Adinolfi & Jorgelina Di Pasquale, 2022. "Molecular marketing, personalised information and willingness‐to‐pay for functional foods: Vitamin D enriched eggs," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 666-689, September.
    17. Dahlstrand Rudin, Amanda, 2022. "Defying distance? The provision of services in the digital age," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118042, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:28:y:2019:i:6:p:801-807. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.