4.3 Article

METHODS FOR COVARIATE ADJUSTMENT IN COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS THAT USE CLUSTER RANDOMISED TRIALS

期刊

HEALTH ECONOMICS
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 1101-1118

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hec.2812

关键词

statistical methods; cluster randomised trials; economic evaluation; covariate adjustment

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia
  2. UK Medical Research Council
  3. ESRC [ES/G026300/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. MRC [MC_U105260792, G106/1173, G0802321] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. British Heart Foundation [RG/08/014/24067] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G026300/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [G106/1173, MC_U105260792, G0802321] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. National Institute for Health Research [PDA/03/07/026] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Statistical methods have been developed for cost-effectiveness analyses of cluster randomised trials (CRTs) where baseline covariates are balanced. However, CRTs may show systematic differences in individual and cluster-level covariates between the treatment groups. This paper presents three methods to adjust for imbalances in observed covariates: seemingly unrelated regression with a robust standard error, a two-stage bootstrap approach combined with seemingly unrelated regression and multilevel models. We consider the methods in a cost-effectiveness analysis of a CRT with covariate imbalance, unequal cluster sizes and a prognostic relationship that varied by treatment group. The cost-effectiveness results differed according to the approach for covariate adjustment. A simulation study then assessed the relative performance of methods for addressing systematic imbalance in baseline covariates. The simulations extended the case study and considered scenarios with different levels of confounding, cluster size variation and few clusters. Performance was reported as bias, root mean squared error and CI coverage of the incremental net benefit. Even with low levels of confounding, unadjusted methods were biased, but all adjusted methods were unbiased. Multilevel models performed well across all settings, and unlike the other methods, reported CI coverage close to nominal levels even with few clusters of unequal sizes. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据