Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 25–48 | Cite as

A Systematic and Critical Review of the Evolving Methods and Applications of Value of Information in Academia and Practice

  • Lotte SteutenEmail author
  • Gijs van de Wetering
  • Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn
  • Valesca Retèl
Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective

This article provides a systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information (VOI) in academia and practice and discusses where future research needs to be directed.

Methods

Published VOI studies were identified by conducting a computerized search on Scopus and ISI Web of Science from 1980 until December 2011 using pre-specified search terms. Only full-text papers that outlined and discussed VOI methods for medical decision making, and studies that applied VOI and explicitly discussed the results with a view to informing healthcare decision makers, were included. The included papers were divided into methodological and applied papers, based on the aim of the study.

Results

A total of 118 papers were included of which 50 % (n = 59) are methodological. A rapidly accumulating literature base on VOI from 1999 onwards for methodological papers and from 2005 onwards for applied papers is observed. Expected value of sample information (EVSI) is the preferred method of VOI to inform decision making regarding specific future studies, but real-life applications of EVSI remain scarce. Methodological challenges to VOI are numerous and include the high computational demands, dealing with non-linear models and interdependency between parameters, estimations of effective time horizons and patient populations, and structural uncertainties.

Conclusion

VOI analysis receives increasing attention in both the methodological and the applied literature bases, but challenges to applying VOI in real-life decision making remain. For many technical and methodological challenges to VOI analytic solutions have been proposed in the literature, including leaner methods for VOI. Further research should also focus on the needs of decision makers regarding VOI.

Keywords

Health Technology Assessment Structural Uncertainty Applied Paper Methodological Paper High Computational Demand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

No sources of funding were used to prepare this article. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to its content and the opinions expressed in the article are those of the authors. The authors gratefully acknowledge Prof. Dr. Maarten IJzerman for sharing his thoughtful insights regarding the role of VOI methods in academia and practice, and for facilitating the performance of this extensive review at the Department of Health Technology and Services Research, University of Twente, The Netherlands.

Author contributions

Lotte Steuten conceived and planned the review, contributed to acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafted the paper, made substantive suggestions for revision, approved the final submitted version and acts as guarantor for the overall content. Gijs van de Wetering contributed to acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafted the paper, made substantive suggestions for revision, and approved the final submitted version. Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn and Valesca Retèl contributed to acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data, made substantive suggestions for revision and approved the final submitted version.

References

  1. 1.
    Eckermann S, Karnon J, Willan AR. The value of value of information. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):699–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raiffa H. Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. New York: Random House; 1968.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pratt JW, Raiffa H, Schlaifer RO. Introduction to statistical decision theory. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Howard RA. Value of information lotteries. IEEE Transact Sys Sci Cybern. 1967;SSC3(1):54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Howard RA. The foundations of decision analysis. IEEE Transact Sys Sci Cybern. 1986;SSC4(3):211–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yokota F, Thompson KM. Value of information literature analysis: a review of applications in health risk management. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(3):287–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eckermann S, Willan AR. Expected value of information and decision making in HTA. Health Econ. 2007;16(2):195–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Claxton K, Sculpher M, Drummond M. A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Lancet. 2002;360(9334):711–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eckermann S, Willan AR. Globally optimal trial design for local decision making. Health Econ. 2009;18:203–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Willan AR, Eckermann S. Optimal clinical trial design using value of information methods with imperfect implementation. Health Econ. 2010;19:549–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eckermann S, Willan AR. Time and expected value of sample information wait for no patient. Value Health. 2008;11(3):522–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson MS. Decision-analytic determination of study size: the case of electronic fetal monitoring. Med Decis Making. 1981;1(2):165–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Claxton K, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority setting. Health Econ. 1996;5(6):513–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Felli JC, Hazen GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(1):95–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Claxton K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 1999;18(3):269–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Claxton K, Thompson KM. A dynamic programming approach to the efficient design of clinical trials. J Health Econ. 2001;20(5):797–822.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Claxton K, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ. When is evidence sufficient? Health Aff. 2005;24(1):93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sculpher M, Claxton K. Establishing the cost-effectiveness of new pharmaceuticals under conditions of uncertainty: when is there sufficient evidence? Value Health. 2005;8(4):431–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ades AE, Sutton AJ. Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision-making: current approaches. J Roy Stat Soc A Sta. 2006;169(1):5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fenwick E, Palmer S, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Abrams K, Sutton A. An iterative Bayesian approach to health technology assessment: application to a policy of preoperative optimization for patients undergoing major elective surgery. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(5):480–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Philips Z, Claxton KP, Palmer S, Bojke L, Sculpher MJ. Priority setting for research in health care: an application of value of information analysis to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(3):379–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Griffin S, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision analysis for resource allocation in health care. J Health Services Res Policy. 2008;13(Suppl. 3):23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Welton NJ, Madan J, Ades AE. Are head-to-head trials of biologics needed? The role of value of information in arthritis research. Rheumatology. 2011;50(Suppl. 4):iv,19–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Claxton K, Neumann PJ, Araki S, Weinstein MC. Bayesian value-of-information analysis: an application to a policy model of Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17(1):38–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Townsend J, Buxton M, Harper G. Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: methods and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(20):iii,1–82.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chilcott J, Brennan A, Booth A, Karnon J, Tappenden P. The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(23):iii,1–125.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yokota F, Thompson KM. Value of information analysis in environmental health risk management decisions: past, present, and future. Risk Anal. 2004;24(3):635–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fleurence RL, Torgerson DJ. Setting priorities for research. Health Policy. 2004;69(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sculpher MJ, Drummond MF. Analysis sans frontières: can we ever make economic evaluations generalisable across jurisdictions? Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1087–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Willan AR. Clinical decision making and the expected value of information. Clin Trials. 2007;4(3):279–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Claxton K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):781–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rojnik K, Naversnik K. Gaussian process metamodeling in Bayesian value of information analysis: a case of the complex health economic model for breast cancer screening. Value Health. 2008;11(2):240–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goeree R, Levin L, Chandra K, et al. Health technology assessment and primary data collection for reducing uncertainty in decision making. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6(5):332–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baio G, Russo P. A decision-theoretic framework for the application of cost-effectiveness analysis in regulatory processes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(8):645–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Myers E, Sanders GD, Ravi D, et al. Evaluating the potential use of modeling and value-of-information analysis for future research prioritization within the evidence-based practice center program [publication no. 11-EHC030-EF]. Future Research Needs: Methods Research Series. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2011. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?productid=700&pageaction=displayproduct. Accessed 11 Nov 2012.
  36. 36.
    Felli JC, Hazen GB. A Bayesian approach to sensitivity analysis. Health Econ. 1999;8(3):263–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Meltzer D. Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis to set priorities for medical research. J Health Econ. 2001;20(1):109–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ades AE, Cliffe S. Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of a multiparameter decision model: consistency of evidence and the accurate assessment of uncertainty. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(4):359–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ades AE, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modelling. Med Decis Making. 2004;24(2):207–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tappenden P, Chilcott JB, Eggington S, Oakley J, McCabe C. Methods for expected value of information analysis in complex health economic models: developments on the health economics of interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(27):iii,1–78.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Willan AR, Pinto EM. The value of information and optimal clinical trial design. Stat Med. 2005;24(12):1791–806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Koerkamp BG, Hunink MGM, Stijnen T, Weinstein MC. Identifying key parameters in cost-effectiveness analysis using value of information: a comparison of methods. Health Econ. 2006;15(4):383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Brennan A, Kharroubi S, O’Hagan A, Chilcott J. Calculating partial expected value of perfect information via Monte Carlo sampling algorithms. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(4):448–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brennan A, Kharroubi SA. Efficient computation of partial expected value of sample information using Bayesian approximation. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):122–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brennan A, Kharroubi SA. Expected value of sample information for Weibull survival data. Health Econ. 2007;16(11):1205–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Barton GR, Briggs AH, Fenwick EAL. Optimal cost-effectiveness decisions: the role of the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and the expected value of perfection information (EVPI). Value Health. 2008;11(5):886–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Coyle D, Oakley J. Estimating the expected value of partial perfect information: a review of methods. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9(3):251–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fenwick E, Marshall DA, Blackhouse G, Vidaillet H, Slee A, Shemanski L, et al. Assessing the impact of censoring of costs and effects on health-care decision-making: an example using the atrial fibrillation follow-up investigation of rhythm management (AFFIRM) study. Value Health. 2008;11(3):365–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Philips Z, Claxton K, Palmer S. The half-life of truth: what are appropriate time horizons for research decisions? Med Decis Making. 2008;28(3):287–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Welton NJ, Ades AE, Caldwell DM, Peters TJ. Research prioritization based on expected value of partial perfect information: a case-study on interventions to increase uptake of breast cancer screening. J Roy Stat Soc A Sta. 2008;171(4):807–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Groot Koerkamp B, Weinstein MC, Stijnen T, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG. Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:194–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hoyle M. Historical lifetimes of drugs in England: application to value of information and cost-effectiveness analyses. Value Health. 2010;13(8):885–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Barton P. What happens to value of information measures as the number of decision options increases? Health Econ. 2011;20(7):853–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Price MJ, Welton NJ, Briggs AH, Ades AE. Model averaging in the presence of structural uncertainty about treatment effects: influence on treatment decision and expected value of information. Value Health. 2011;14(2):205–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Welton N, Ades AE. Research decisions in the face of heterogeneity: what can a new study tell us? Health Econ. 2011. doi: 10.1002/hec.1797.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Willan AR, Kowgier ME. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multinational RCT with a binary measure of effectiveness and an interacting covariate. Health Econ. 2008;17(7):777–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Conti S, Claxton K. Dimensions of design space: a decision-theoretic approach to optimal research design. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(6):643–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Karnon J. Planning the efficient allocation of research funds: an adapted application of a non-parametric Bayesian value of information analysis. Health Policy. 2002;61(3):329–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Miller P. Role of pharmacoeconomic analysis in R&D decision making: when, where, how? Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(1):1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Groot Koerkamp B, Hunink MGM, Stijnen T, Hammitt JK, Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC. Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):101–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Eckermann S, Briggs A, Willan AR. Health technology assessment in the cost-disutility plane. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(2):172–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Eckermann S, Willan AR. The option value of delay in health technology assessment. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(3):300–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. The value of implementation and the value of information: combined and uneven development. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(1):21–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Willan AR. Optimal sample size determinations from an industry perspective based on the expected value of information. Clin Trials. 2008;5(6):587–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hoomans T, Fenwick EAL, Palmer S, Claxton K. Value of information and value of implementation: application of an analytic framework to inform resource allocation decisions in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(2):315–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Janssen MP, Koffijberg H. Enhancing value of information analyses. Value Health. 2009;12(6):935–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Griffin S, Welton NJ, Claxton K. Exploring the research decision space: the expected value of information for sequential research designs. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(2):155–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lal JA, Schulte In den Bäumen T, Morré SA, Brand A. Public health and valorization of genome-based technologies: a new model. J Transl Med. 2011;9(1):207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ginnelly L, Manca A. The use of decision models in mental health economic evaluation: challenges and opportunities. Appl Health Econ and Health Policy. 2003;2(3):157–64.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fleurence RL. Setting priorities for research: a practical application of ‘payback’ and expected value of information. Health Econ. 2007;16(12):1345–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, Palmer S. Identifying research priorities: the value of information associated with repeat screening for age-related macular degeneration. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(1):33–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Groot Koerkamp B, Spronk S, Stijnen T, Hunink MG. Value of information analyses of economic randomized controlled trials: the treatment of intermittent claudication. Value Health. 2010;13(2):242–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Vallejo-Torres L, Steuten L, Parkinson B, Girling AJ, Buxton MJ. Integrating health economics into the product development cycle: a case study of absorbable pins for treating hallux valgus. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(4):596–610.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Woods B, Veenstra D, Hawkins N. Prioritizing pharmacogenetic research: a value of information analysis of CYP2D6 testing to guide breast cancer treatment. Value Health. 2011;14(8):989–1001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Claxton K, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Palmer S. A pilot study on the use of decision theory and value of information analysis as part of the NHS Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(31):1–103, iii.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ginnelly L, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ, Golder S. Using value of information analysis to inform publicly funded research priorities. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(1):37–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Martikainen JA, Kivioja A, Hallinen T, Vihinen P. Economic evaluation of temozolomide in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(8):803–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Robinson M, Palmer S, Sculpher M, Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Bowens A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for the initial medical management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and decision-analytical modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(27):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–158.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Brown J, Welton NJ, Bankhead C, Richard SH, Roberts L, Tydeman C, et al. A Bayesian approach to analysing the cost-effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening. Health Econ. 2006;15(5):435–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Castelnuovo E, Thompson-Coon J, Pitt M, Cramp M, Siebert U, Price A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of testing for hepatitis C in former injecting drug users. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(32):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1–93.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Claxton KP, Sculpher MJ. Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1055–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Garside R, Pitt M, Somerville M, Stein K, Price A, Gilbert N. Surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus: exploring the uncertainty through systematic review, expert workshop and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(8):1–142, iii-iv.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Henriksson M, Lundgren F, Carlsson P. Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources: the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden. Health Econ. 2006;15(12):1311–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Iglesias CP, Claxton K. Comprehensive decision-analytic model and Bayesian value-of-information analysis: pentoxifylline in the treatment of chronic venous leg ulcers. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(5):465–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Speight PM, Palmer S, Moles DR, Downer MC, Smith DH, Henriksson M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening for oral cancer in primary care. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(14):1–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Bojke L, Hornby E, Sculpher M. A comparison of the cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapy or surgery (laparoscopic fundoplication) in the treatment of GORD. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(10):829–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Colbourn T, Asseburg C, Bojke L, Philips Z, Claxton K, Ades AE, et al. Prenatal screening and treatment strategies to prevent group B streptococcal and other bacterial infections in early infancy: cost-effectiveness and expected value of information analyses. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(29):21–108.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Collins R, Fenwick E, Trowman R, Perard R, Norman G, Light K, et al. A systematic review and economic model of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone for the treatment of hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(2):iii-iv, xv-xviii, 1–179.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Dong H, Coyle D, Buxton M. Value of information analysis for a new technology: computer-assisted total knee replacement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(3):337–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Girling AJ, Freeman G, Gordon JP, Poole-Wilson P, Scott DA, Lilford RJ. Modeling payback from research into the efficacy of left-ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(2):269–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Griebsch I, Knowles RL, Brown J, Bull C, Wren C, Dezateux CA. Comparing the clinical and economic effects of clinical examination, pulse oximetry, and echocardiography in newborn screening for congenital heart defects: a probabilistic cost-effectiveness model and value of information analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(2):192–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Quinn RR, Naimark DMJ, Oliver MJ, Bayoumi AM. Should hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation undergo systemic anticoagulation? A cost-utility analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;50(3):421–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Teerawattananon Y, Mugford M, Tangcharoensathien V. Economic evaluation of palliative management versus peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: evidence for coverage decisions in Thailand. Value Health. 2007;10(1):61–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Galani C, Al M, Schneider H, Rutten FFH. Uncertainty in decision-making: value of additional information in the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention in overweight and obese people. Value Health. 2008;11(3):424–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Grant A, Wileman S, Ramsay C, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimal access surgery amongst people with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a UK collaborative study. The REFLUX trial. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(31):1–181, iii-iv.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Koerkamp BG, Nikken JJ, Oei EH, Stijnen T, Ginai AZ, Hunink MGM. Value of information analysis used to determine the necessity of additional research: MR imaging in acute knee trauma as an example. Radiology. 2008;246(2):420–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Oostenbrink JB, Al MJ, Oppe M, Rutten-van Mölken MP. Expected value of perfect information: an empirical example of reducing decision uncertainty by conducting additional research. Value Health. 2008;11(7):1070–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Singh S, Nosyk B, Sun H, Christenson JM, Innes G, Anis AH. Value of information of a clinical prediction rule: informing the efficient use of healthcare and health research resources. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(1):112–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Somerville M, Garside R, Pitt M, Stein K. Surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus: is it worthwhile? Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(4):588–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Ramsey SD, Blough DK, Sullivan SD. A forensic evaluation of the national emphysema treatment trial using the expected value of information approach. Med Care. 2008;46(5):542–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Wailoo AJ, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Turner DA, Abrams KR, Brennan A, et al. Cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses of neuraminidase inhibitors for the treatment of influenza. Value Health. 2008;11(2):160–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Bansback N, Ara R, Ward S, Anis A, Choi HK. Statin therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(1):25–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Black C, Clar C, Henderson R, MacEachern C, McNamee P, Quayyum Z, et al. The clinical effectiveness of glucosamine and chondroitin supplements in slowing or arresting progression of osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(52):1–123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Carlson JJ, Garrison LP, Ramsey SD, Veenstra DL. The potential clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenomic approaches to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(1):20–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ehlers L, Overvad K, Sørensen J, Christensen S, Bech M, Kjølby M. Analysis of cost effectiveness of screening Danish men aged 65 for abdominal aortic aneurysm. BMJ. 2009;338:b2243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hassan C, Hunink MG, Laghi A, Pickhardt PJ, Zullo A, Kim DH, et al. Value-of-information analysis to guide future research in colorectal cancer screening. Radiology. 2009;253(3):745–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Laghi A, Zullo A, Kim DH, Iafrate F, et al. Impact of whole-body CT screening on the cost effectiveness of CT colonography. Radiology. 2009;251(1):156–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    McKenna C, McDaid C, Suekarran S, Hawkins N, Claxton K, Light K, et al. Enhanced external counterpulsation for the treatment of stable angina and heart failure: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(24):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–90.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Miners A. Revisiting the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with clotting factor for the treatment of severe haemophilia A. Haemophilia. 2009;15(4):881–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Rogowski W, Burch J, Palmer S, Craigs C, Golder S, Woolacott N. The effect of different treatment durations of clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(31):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–77.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Stevenson MD, Oakley JE, Lloyd Jones M, Brennan A, Compston JE, McCloskey EV, et al. The cost-effectiveness of an RCT to establish whether 5 or 10 years of bisphosphonate treatment is the better duration for women with a prior fracture. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(6):678–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Wilson E, Gurusamy K, Gluud C, Davidson BR. Cost-utility and value-of-information analysis of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg. 2010;97(2):210–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Xie F, Blackhouse G, Assasi N, Campbell K, Levin M, Bowen J, et al. Results of a model analysis to estimate cost utility and value of information for intravenous immunoglobulin in Canadian adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura. Clin Therapeutics. 2009;31(5):1082–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Grutters JP, Pijls-Johannesma M, Ruysscher DD, et al. The cost-effectiveness of particle therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: exploring decision uncertainty and areas for future research. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010;36(6):468–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Smits M, Dippel DW, Nederkoorn PJ, et al. Minor head injury: CT-based strategies for management—a cost-effectiveness analysis. Radiology. 2010;254(2):532–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Di Giulio E, Hunink MG, Zullo A, Nardelli BB. Value-of-information analysis to guide future research in the management of the colorectal malignant polyp. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(2):135–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kim N, Yang B, Lee T, Kwon S. An economic analysis of usual care and acupuncture collaborative treatment on chronic low back pain: a Markov model decision analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2010;10:74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    McKenna C, Burch J, Suekarran S, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of aldosterone antagonists for postmyocardial infarction heart failure. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(24):1–162.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Stevenson MD, Scope A, Sutcliffe PA, et al. Group cognitive behavioural therapy for postnatal depression: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(44):1–107, iii-iv.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Stevenson MD, Scope A, Sutcliffe PA. The cost-effectiveness of group cognitive behavioural therapy compared with routine primary care for women with postnatal depression in the UK. Value Health. 2010;13(5):580–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Brush J, Boyd K, Chappell F, et al. The value of FDG positron emission tomography/computerised tomography (PET/CT) in pre-operative staging of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(35):1–192, iii-iv.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Hall PS, Hulme C, McCabe C, Oluboyede Y, Round J, Cameron DA. Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab for early breast cancer: a UK perspective considering duration of benefit, long-term toxicity and pattern of recurrence. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(5):415–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Latimer N, Lord J, Grant RL, O’Mahony R, Dickson J, Conaghan PG. Value of information in the osteoarthritis setting: cost effectiveness of COX-2 selective inhibitors, traditional NSAIDs and proton pump inhibitors. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(3):225–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Nosyk B, Sharif B, Sun H, Cooper C. CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network Influenza Vaccine Research Group. The cost-effectiveness and value of information of three influenza vaccination dosing strategies for individuals with human immunodeficiency virus. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e27059.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Purmonen TT, Pänkäläinen E, Turunen JH, Asseburg C, Martikainen JA. Short-course adjuvant trastuzumab therapy in early stage breast cancer in Finland: cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis based on the 5-year follow-up results of the FinHer Trial. Acta Oncol. 2011;50(3):344–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Soeteman DI, Busschbach JJ, Verheul R, Hoomans T, Kim JJ. Cost-effective psychotherapy for personality disorders in The Netherlands: the value of further research and active implementation. Value Health. 2011;14(2):229–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Gurusamy K, Wilson E, Burroughs AK, Davidson BR. Intra-operative vs pre-operative endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with gallbladder and common bile duct stones: cost-utility and value-of-information analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(1):15–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Maheswaran H, Barton P. Intensive case finding and isoniazid preventative therapy in HIV infected individuals in Africa: economic model and value of information analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e30457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Jackson CH, Bojke L, Thompson SG, Claxton K, Sharples LD. A framework for addressing structural uncertainty in decision models. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(4):662–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Jackson CH, Sharples LD, Thompson SG. Structural and parameter uncertainty in Bayesian cost-effectiveness models. J Roy Stat Soc C App. 2010;59(2):233–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Bojke L, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Palmer S. Characterizing structural uncertainty in decision analytic models: a review and application of methods. Value Health. 2009;12(5):739–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Palmer S, Smith PC. Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 2000;19(5):755–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Bilcke J, Beutels P, Brisson M, Jit M. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models; a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(4):675–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Hammitt JK. Can more information increase uncertainty? Chance. 1995;8(3):15–36.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Hammitt JK, Shlyakther AI. The expected value of information and the probability of surprise. Risk Anal. 1999;19(1):135–52.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Husereau D. Sentence first, verdict afterwards: using value of information analysis to inform decisions about pharmacogenomic test adoption and research. Curr Pharmacogenom Personalized Med. 2010;8:167–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Longworth L, Sculpher M, Bojke L, Tosh J. Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: a review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(2):180–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Welch HG, Mogielnicki J. Presumed benefit: lessons from the American experience with marrow transplantation for breast cancer. BMJ. 2002;324(7345):1088–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lotte Steuten
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gijs van de Wetering
    • 2
  • Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn
    • 1
  • Valesca Retèl
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Health Technology and Services ResearchUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Health Technology AssessmentRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Psychosocial Research and EpidemiologyNetherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations