The Effect Size in Uncertainty Analysis

Abstract Objective In model-based health economic evaluation, uncertainty analysis is often done using parametric bootstrapping. This requires specifying probability distributions for the model variables that are uncertain. Methods The effect size of the intervention is often expressed as a relative...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Value in health 2010-06, Vol.13 (4), p.388-391
Main Author: Barendregt, Jan J., MA, PhD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bootstrap methods
Confidence intervals
Economics, Medical - statistics & numerical data
Health economics
Humans
Internal Medicine
parametric bootstrap
relative risk
Relative risks
Risk
Standard errors
Uncertainty
uncertainty analysis
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Objective In model-based health economic evaluation, uncertainty analysis is often done using parametric bootstrapping. This requires specifying probability distributions for the model variables that are uncertain. Methods The effect size of the intervention is often expressed as a relative risk, and the standard assumption for a relative risk is that it has a lognormal distribution with the natural log of the relative risk and its standard error as parameters. The problem with this assumption is that the mean of the bootstrap draws from the lognormal distribution is always higher than the relative risk. Results This article looks at two ways to correct for this effect and discusses their advantages and drawbacks. Both methods return a bootstrap mean equal to the relative risk, but the first returns an uncertainty interval that is narrower than the corresponding confidence interval, although the second method retains the corresponding width. Conclusions The article concludes that the second correction method is preferred.
ISSN:1098-3015
1524-4733
DOI:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00686.x