↓ Skip to main content

When to Use Discrete Event Simulation (DES) for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies? A Review and Critique of the Costs and Benefits of DES

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
When to Use Discrete Event Simulation (DES) for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies? A Review and Critique of the Costs and Benefits of DES
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40273-014-0147-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Karnon, Hossein Haji Ali Afzali

Abstract

Modelling in economic evaluation is an unavoidable fact of life. Cohort-based state transition models are most common, though discrete event simulation (DES) is increasingly being used to implement more complex model structures. The benefits of DES relate to the greater flexibility around the implementation and population of complex models, which may provide more accurate or valid estimates of the incremental costs and benefits of alternative health technologies. The costs of DES relate to the time and expertise required to implement and review complex models, when perhaps a simpler model would suffice. The costs are not borne solely by the analyst, but also by reviewers. In particular, modelled economic evaluations are often submitted to support reimbursement decisions for new technologies, for which detailed model reviews are generally undertaken on behalf of the funding body. This paper reports the results from a review of published DES-based economic evaluations. Factors underlying the use of DES were defined, and the characteristics of applied models were considered, to inform options for assessing the potential benefits of DES in relation to each factor. Four broad factors underlying the use of DES were identified: baseline heterogeneity, continuous disease markers, time varying event rates, and the influence of prior events on subsequent event rates. If relevant, individual-level data are available, representation of the four factors is likely to improve model validity, and it is possible to assess the importance of their representation in individual cases. A thorough model performance evaluation is required to overcome the costs of DES from the users' perspective, but few of the reviewed DES models reported such a process. More generally, further direct, empirical comparisons of complex models with simpler models would better inform the benefits of DES to implement more complex models, and the circumstances in which such benefits are most likely.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 84 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 19%
Student > Master 9 10%
Other 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 16%
Computer Science 6 7%
Engineering 6 7%
Decision Sciences 4 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 27 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,590,769
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#464
of 1,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,700
of 220,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 220,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.