Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data

被引:19
|
作者
Brennan, Alan [1 ]
Kharroubi, Samer A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, ScHARR, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
关键词
value of information; sample size; clinical trial design; Weibull model; proportional hazards; cost-effectiveness;
D O I
10.1002/hec.1217
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Expected value of sample information (EVSI) involves simulating data collection, Bayesian updating, and re-examining decisions. Bayesian updating in Weibull models typically requires Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). We examine five methods for calculating posterior expected net benefits: two heuristic methods (data lumping and pseudo-normal); two Bayesian approximation methods (Tierney & Kadane, Brennan & Kharroubi); and the gold standard MCMC. A case study computes EVSI for 25 study options. We compare accuracy, computation time and trade-offs of EVSI versus study costs. Brennan & Kharroubi (B&K) approximates expected net benefits to within +/- 1% of MCMC. Other methods, data lumping (+54%), pseudo-normal (-5%) and Tierney & Kadane (+11%) are less accurate. B&K also produces the most accurate EVSI approximation. Pseudo-normal is also reasonably accurate, whilst Tierney & Kadane consistently underestimates and data lumping exhibits large variance. B&K computation is 12 times faster than the MCMC method in our case study. Though not always faster, B&K provides most computational efficiency when net benefits require appreciable computation time and when many MCMC samples are needed. The methods enable EVSI computation for economic models with Weibull survival parameters. The approach can generalize to complex multi-state models and to survival analyses using other smooth parametric distributions. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1205 / 1225
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Adjusting Expected Value of Sample Information Using Realistic Expectations around Implementation
    Andronis, Lazaros
    Barton, Pelham M.
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2016, 36 (03) : 284 - 284
  • [22] Expected Value of Sample Information to Guide the Design of Group Sequential Clinical Trials
    Flight, Laura
    Julious, Steven
    Brennan, Alan
    Todd, Susan
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2022, 42 (04) : 461 - 473
  • [23] Efficient computation of partial expected value of sample information using Bayesian approximation
    Brennan, Alan
    Kharroubi, Samer A.
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2007, 26 (01) : 122 - 148
  • [24] The expected value of the traceability information
    Aiello, Giuseppe
    Enea, Mario
    Muriana, Cinzia
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2015, 244 (01) : 176 - 186
  • [25] THE EXPECTED VALUE OF CLINICAL INFORMATION
    FUHRER, R
    BULLETIN DU CANCER, 1980, 67 (04) : 405 - 411
  • [26] Efficient Monte Carlo Estimation of the Expected Value of Sample Information Using Moment Matching
    Heath, Anna
    Manolopoulou, Ioanna
    Baio, Gianluca
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2018, 38 (02) : 163 - 173
  • [27] Optimal sample size determinations from an industry perspective based on the expected value of information
    Willan, Andrew R.
    CLINICAL TRIALS, 2008, 5 (06) : 587 - 594
  • [28] Calculating the Expected Value of Sample Information in Practice: Considerations from 3 Case Studies
    Heath, Anna
    Kunst, Natalia
    Jackson, Christopher
    Strong, Mark
    Alarid-Escudero, Fernando
    Goldhaber-Fiebert, Jeremy D.
    Baio, Gianluca
    Menzies, Nicolas A.
    Jalal, Hawre
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2020, 40 (03) : 314 - 326
  • [29] CALCULATING THE EXPECTED VALUE OF SAMPLE INFORMATION IN PRACTICE: CONSIDERATIONS FROM THREE CASE STUDIES
    Heath, Anna
    Kunst, Natalia R.
    Jackson, Christopher
    Strong, Mark
    Alarid-Escudero, Fernando
    Goldhaber-Fiebert, Jeremy D.
    Baio, Gianluca
    Menzies, Nicolas A.
    Jalal, Hawre
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2020, 40 (01) : E337 - E338
  • [30] Calculating the Expected Value of Sample Information Using Efficient Nested Monte Carlo: A Tutorial
    Heath, Anna
    Baio, Gianluca
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2018, 21 (11) : 1299 - 1304