The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 251–259 | Cite as

Estimating the expected value of partial perfect information: a review of methods

Original paper

Abstract

Background

Value of information analysis provides a framework for the analysis of uncertainty within economic analysis by focussing on the value of obtaining further information to reduce uncertainty. The mathematical definition of the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) is fixed, though there are different methods in the literature for its estimation. In this paper these methods are explored and compared.

Methods

Analysis was conducted using a disease model for Parkinson’s disease. Five methods for estimating partial EVPIs (EVPPIs) were used: a single Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) method, the unit normal loss integral (UNLI) method, a two-stage method using MCS, a two-stage method using MCS and quadrature and a difference method requiring two MCS. EVPPI was estimated for each individual parameter in the model as well as for three groups of parameters (transition probabilities, costs and utilities).

Results

Using 5,000 replications, four methods returned similar results for EVPPIs. With 5 million replications, results were near identical. However, the difference method repeatedly gave estimates substantially different to the other methods.

Conclusions

The difference method is not rooted in the mathematical definition of EVPI and is clearly an inappropriate method for estimating EVPPI. The single MCS and UNLI methods were the least complex methods to use, but are restricted in their appropriateness. The two-stage MCS and quadrature-based methods are complex and time consuming. Thus, where appropriate, EVPPI should be estimated using either the single MCS or UNLI method. However, where neither of these methods is appropriate, either of the two-stage MCS and quadrature methods should be used.

Keywords

Economic evaluation Value of information Uncertainty 

References

  1. 1.
    Dakins, M.E., Toll, J.E., Small, M.J.: Risk-based environmental remediation: decision framework and role of uncertainty. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13, 1907–1915 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Felli, J.C., Hazen, G.B.: Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med. Decis. Making. 18, 95–109 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Felli, J.C., Hazen, G.B.: A Bayesian approach to sensitivity analysis. Health. Econ. 8, 263–268 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Claxton, K., Posnett, J.: An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health. Econ. 5, 513–524 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chilcott, J., Brennan, A., Booth, A., Karnon, J., Tappenden, P.: The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health. Technol. Assess. 7, 1–125 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brennan, A.B., Chilcott, J.B., Kharroubi, S., O’Hagan, A.: Calculating expected value of perfect information: resolution of conflicting methods via a two level Monte Carlo approach. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of SMDM, Washington (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brennan, A.B., Chilcott, J.B., Kharroubi, S., O’Hagan, A.: A two level Monte Carlo approach to calculation expected value of sample information: how to value a research design. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of SMDM, Washington (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coyle, D., Buxton, M.J., O’Brien, B.J.: Measures of importance for economic analysis based on decision modeling. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 56, 989–997 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coyle, D., Barbeau, M., Baladi, J.F.: Bayesian economic analysis of treatment with entacapone for Parkinson’s disease patients in Canada. In: Proceedings of the Society of Medical Decision Making, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Claxton, K., Neumann, P.J., Araki, S., Weinstein, M.C.: Bayesian value of information analysis. An application to a policy model of Alzheimer’s disease. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health. Care. 17, 38–55 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fenwick, E., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., Briggs, A.: Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessment: the role of iterative decision analytic modelling. CHE Discussion Paper 179. University of York, York (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coyle, D., Barbeau, M., Guttman, M., Baladi, J.F.: The economic evaluation of pharmacotherapies for Parkinson’s disease treatment. Parkinsonism. Relat. Disord. 9, 301–307 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ades, A.E., Lu, G., Claxton, K.: Expected value of sample of information in medical decision modelling. Med. Decis. Making 4, 207–227 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Claxton, K., Fenwick, E., Sculpher, M.J.: Decision making with uncertainty. In: Jones A (ed.) Companion to Health Economics, Edward Elgar (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oakley, J.: Value of information for complex cost-effectiveness models. Research Report No. 533/02 Department of Probability and Statistics, University of Sheffield (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Community MedicineUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Probability and StatisticsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations