4.5 Article

Net-benefit regression with censored cost-effectiveness data from randomized or observational studies

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 41, 期 20, 页码 3958-3974

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.9486

关键词

censored data; cost-effectiveness analysis; double robustness; inverse-probability weighting; net-benefit regression

资金

  1. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1 TR001860]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [P50 MH106438-7776]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on methods for censored cost-effectiveness data in the context of new medical interventions evaluation. The proposed methods include the net-benefit regression framework and a doubly robust estimator for average causal incremental net benefit, showing valid inference in observational studies. Extensive numerical studies confirm the finite-sample performance of these methods and demonstrate their application with real data examples.
Cost-effectiveness analysis is an essential part of the evaluation of new medical interventions. While in many studies both costs and effectiveness (eg, survival time) are censored, standard survival analysis techniques are often invalid due to the induced dependent censoring problem. We propose methods for censored cost-effectiveness data using the net-benefit regression framework, which allow covariate-adjustment and subgroup identification when comparing two intervention groups. The methods provide a straightforward way to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves with censored data. We also propose a more efficient doubly robust estimator of average causal incremental net benefit, which increases the likelihood that the results will represent a valid inference in observational studies. Lastly, we conduct extensive numerical studies to examine the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods, and illustrate the proposed methods with a real data example using both survival time and quality-adjusted survival time as the measures of effectiveness.

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

4.5
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