↓ Skip to main content

Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Models: Determining Model Convergence in Cohort Models

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Models: Determining Model Convergence in Cohort Models
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40273-018-0697-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony J. Hatswell, Ash Bullement, Andrew Briggs, Mike Paulden, Matthew D. Stevenson

Abstract

Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) demonstrates the parameter uncertainty in a decision problem. The technique involves sampling parameters from their respective distributions (rather than simply using mean/median parameter values). Guidance in the literature, and from health technology assessment bodies, on the number of simulations that should be performed suggests a 'sufficient number', or until 'convergence', which is seldom defined. The objective of this tutorial is to describe possible outcomes from PSA, discuss appropriate levels of accuracy, and present guidance by which an analyst can determine if a sufficient number of simulations have been conducted, such that results are considered to have converged. The proposed approach considers the variance of the outcomes of interest in cost-effectiveness analysis as a function of the number of simulations. A worked example of the technique is presented using results from a published model, with recommendations made on best practice. While the technique presented remains essentially arbitrary, it does give a mechanism for assessing the level of simulation error, and thus represents an advance over current practice of a round number of simulations with no assessment of model convergence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 18%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 57 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 13 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 66 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 29 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,705,944
of 25,349,102 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#228
of 1,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,260
of 337,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#10
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,349,102 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 337,297 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 67% of its contemporaries.