PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 75–88 | Cite as

Sensitivity Analysis in Health Economic and Pharmacoeconomic Studies

An Appraisal of the Literature
  • Karen E. Agro
  • Carole A. Bradley
  • Nicole Mittmann
  • Michael Iskedjian
  • A. Lane Ilersich
  • Thomas R. Einarson
Original Research Article Sensitivity Analysis

Abstract

Summary

The objective of this study was to analyse the extent of reporting of sensitivity analyses in the health economics. medical and pharmacy literature between journal types and over time.

90 articles were chosen from each of the bodies of literature on health economics. medicine and pharmacy. MEDLINE. EMBASE and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched for English-language economic studies published between 1989 and 1993.

The studies chosen for inclusion had to be original articles published in one of the selected journals between January 1989 and December 1993, involving a comparison between drugs, treatments or services. and evaluating both costs and outcomes. 123 articles initially met these criteria; however. 16 were inappropriate. 17 were randomised out. leaving 90 studies (73%) that were used (30 from each literature group). Data were extracted independently by 5 raters using a validated checklist. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating K.

53 of the 90 articles (59%) conducted sensitivity analyses. 39 (74o/c) stated explicitly that a sensitivity analysis was being performed; this was noted in the Methods section of 35 papers (67%).80% of health economics journals. 70% of medical journals and 20% of pharmacy journals conducted sensitivity analyses.

Despite the fact that all published pharmacoeconomic guidelines suggest the use of sensitivity analysis. only 59% of studies between 1989 and 1993 did so. Improvement is required. especially in the pharmacy literature. No time trends in the conduct of sensitivity analyses were detected. However. the sample may not have been sufficient to detect such trends. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines should provide more details on preferred methods of sensitivity analysis and on desired parameters.

References

  1. 1.
    Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Toronto: Oxford Medical Publications, 1987Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glossary of terms used in health economics and pharmacoeconomic and quality-of-life analyses. PharmacoEconomics 1994; 6: 401–4Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Einarson TR, Arikian SR, Doyle J. Rank-order stability analysis (ROSA): testing pharmacoeconomic data. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 367–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ontario Ministry of Health. Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1994Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. 1st ed. Ottawa: CCOHTA, 1994Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Australia Commonwealth Depanment of Health Housing and Community Services. Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee. Canberra: Australia Commonwealth Department of Health Housing and Community Services 1992Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology: a report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 61–70Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guyau G, Drummond M, Feeny D, et al. Guidelines for the clinical and economic evaluation of health care technologies. Soc Sci Med 1986; 22: 393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jolicoeur LM, Jones-Grizzle AJ, Boyer JG. Guidelines for performing a pharmacoeconomic analysis. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 1741–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drummond M, Brandt A, Luce B, et al. Standardizing methodologies for economic evaluation in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1993; 9: 26–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGhan WF, Lewis NJW. Issues in health policy: guidelines for pharmaeoeconomic studies. Clin Ther 1994; 14: 486–94Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garattini L, Grilli R, Scopelliti D, et al. A proposal for Italian guidelines in pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7: 1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Econ 1994; 3: 95–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sacristan JA, Day SJ, Navarro O, et al. Use of confidence intervals and sample size calculations in health economic studies. Ann Pharmacother 1995; 29: 719–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mason J, Drummond M. Reporting guidelines for economic studies. Health Econ 1995; 4: 85–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: a review of published studies. Health Econ 1995; 4: 355–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Oecis Making 1985; 5: 157–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 1109–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sacristan JA, Hernandez J, Soto J. ‘Economic relevance’ in pharmacoeconomic studies [letter]. BMJ 1993; 306: 147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Division of Drug Marketing Advertising and Communications (DDMAC). Principles for the review of pharmacoeconomic promotion — draft. USA: 1995Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bradley CA, Iskedjian M, Lanctot KL, et al. Quality assessment of economic evaluations in selected pharmacy, medical, and health economics journals. Ann Pharmacother 1995; 29: 681–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Einarson T, Shear N, Oh P. Models for pharmacoeconomic analysis. Can J Clin Pharmacol. In pressGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jacobs P, Bachynsky J, Baladi J. A comparative review of pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Phannacoeconomics 1995; 8: 182–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen E. Agro
    • 1
  • Carole A. Bradley
    • 2
  • Nicole Mittmann
    • 3
  • Michael Iskedjian
    • 4
  • A. Lane Ilersich
    • 5
    • 6
  • Thomas R. Einarson
    • 7
  1. 1.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Glaxo Wellcome Canada Inc.MississaugaCanada
  3. 3.Department of PharmacologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology AssessmentOttawaCanada
  7. 7.Faculty of Pharmacy and Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations