Estimating Transition Probabilities from Published Evidence: A Tutorial for Decision Modelers
Open accessAbstract
This tutorial presents practical guidance on transforming various types of information published in journals, or available online from government and other sources, into transition probabilities for use in state-transition models, including cost-effectiveness models. Much, but not all, of the guidance has been previously published in peer-reviewed journals. Our purpose is to collect it in one location to serve as a stand-alone resource for decision modelers who draw most or all of their information from the published literature. Our focus is on the technical aspects of manipulating data to derive transition probabilities. We explain how to derive model transition probabilities from the following types of statistics: relative risks, odds, odds ratios, and rates. We then review the well-known approach for converting probabilities to match the model's cycle length when there are two health-state transitions and how to handle the case of three or more health-state transitions, for which the two-state approach is not appropriate. Other topics discussed include transition probabilities for population subgroups, issues to keep in mind when using data from different sources in the derivation process, and sensitivity analyses, including the use of sensitivity analysis to allocate analyst effort in refining transition probabilities and ways to handle sources of uncertainty that are not routinely formalized in models. The paper concludes with recommendations to help modelers make the best use of the published literature.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other effect measures such as odds ratio, risk ratio, or risk differences can be used depending on the methods used to estimate them.
“However, other effect measures can be used, such as odds ratio, risk ratio, or risk differences depending on the methods used to estimate them.30–32”
From A Tutorial on Time-Dependent Cohort State-Transition Models in R Using a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Example (2023) · cites this paper as [32]
The “Relative Risks and Odds Ratios” section discusses using risk ratios and odds ratios to derive transition probabilities, including when an odds ratio can approximate a risk ratio. The passages found do not discuss risk differences as an effect measure, so the source supports only part of the cited list. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Grant, R. L. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f7450 · Cited by 515 · see citing works
State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3
Siebert, U., Alagoz, O., Bayoumi, A. M., Jahn, B., Owens, D. K., Cohen, D. J., & Kuntz, K. M. (2012) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.014 · Cited by 495 · see citing works
Trends in postpartum depressive symptoms- 27 States, 2004, 2008, and 2012
Ko, J. Y., Rockhill, K. M., Tong, V. T., Morrow, B., & Farr, S. L. (2017) · MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report · doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6606a1 · Cited by 334 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- [1]Neumann PJ Sanders GD Russell LB Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine 2016 2 New York Oxford University Press
- [3]Caro JJ Briggs AH Siebert U Modeling good research practices–overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–1 Value Health 2012 15 6 796 803 10.1016/j.jval.2012.06.012 22999128 · DOI
- [4]Borenstein M Hedges LV Higgins JPT Introduction to meta-analysis 2009 Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom Wiley
- [5]Sutton A Ades AE Cooper N Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment Pharmacoeconomics 2008 26 9 753 767 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00006 18767896 · DOI
- [6]Jansen JP Crawford B Bergman G Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons Value Health 2008 11 5 956 964 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00347.x 18489499 · DOI
- [7]Jansen JP Fleurence R Devine B Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1 Value Health 2011 14 4 417 428 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002 21669366 · DOI
- [8]Hoaglin DC Hawkins N Jansen JP Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2 Value Health 2011 14 4 429 437 10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011 21669367 · DOI
- [9]Welton NJ Caldwell DM Adamopoulos E Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease Am J Epidemiol 2009 169 9 1158 1165 10.1093/aje/kwp014 19258485 · DOI
- [10]Basu A Ganiats TG Neumann PJ Sanders GD Russell LB Siegel JE Ganiats TG Discounting in cost-effectiveness analysis Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine 2016 2 New York Oxford University Press 277 288
- [11]Chhatwal J Jayasuriya S Elbasha EH Changing cycle lengths in state-transition models: challenges and solutions Med Decis Making 2016 36 8 952 964 10.1177/0272989X16656165 27369084 PMC5045797 · DOI
- [12]Guyot P Ades AE Beasley M Extrapolation of survival curves from cancer trials using external information Med Decis Making 2017 37 4 353 366 10.1177/0272989X16670604 27681990 PMC6190619 · DOI
- [13]Jackson C Stevens J Ren S Extrapolating survival from randomized trials using external data: a review of methods Med Decis Making 2017 37 4 377 390 10.1177/0272989X16639900 27005519 PMC5424081 · DOI
- [14]Hawkins N Grieve R Extrapolation of survival data in cost-effectiveness analyses: the need for causal clarity Med Decis Making 2017 37 4 337 339 10.1177/0272989X17697019 28355938 · DOI
- [15]Davies C Briggs A Lorgelly P The "hazards" of extrapolating survival curves Med Decis Making 2013 33 3 369 380 10.1177/0272989X12475091 23457025 · DOI
- [16]Latimer NR Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials–extrapolation with patient-level data: inconsistencies, limitations, and a practical guide Med Decis Making 2013 33 6 743 754 10.1177/0272989X12472398 23341049 · DOI
- [17]Russell LB Pentakota SR Toscano CM What pertussis mortality rates make maternal acellular pertussis immunization cost-effective in low- and middle-income countries? A decision analysis Clin Infect Dis 2016 63 suppl 4 S227 S235 10.1093/cid/ciw558 27838677 PMC5106625 · DOI
- [18]Clark A Sanderson C Timing of children's vaccinations in 45 low-income and middle-income countries: an analysis of survey data Lancet 2009 373 9674 1543 1549 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60317-2 19303633 · DOI
- [19]Juretzko P von Kries R Hermann M Effectiveness of acellular pertussis vaccine assessed by hospital-based active surveillance in Germany Clin Infect Dis 2002 35 2 162 167 10.1086/341027 12087522 · DOI
- [20]Black WC Gareen IF Soneji SS Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial N Engl J Med 2014 371 19 1793 1802 10.1056/NEJMoa1312547 25372087 PMC4335305 · DOI
- [21]Jha P Ramasundarahettige C Landsman V 21st-century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the United States N Engl J Med 2013 368 4 341 350 10.1056/NEJMsa1211128 23343063 · DOI · Paper page
- [23]Zhang J Yu KF What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes JAMA 1998 280 19 1690 1691 10.1001/jama.280.19.1690 9832001 · DOI · Paper page
- [25]Norton EC Dowd BE Log odds and the interpretation of logit models Health Serv Res 2018 53 2 859 878 10.1111/1475-6773.12712 28560732 PMC5867187 · DOI
- [26]Fleurence RL Hollenbeak CS Rates and probabilities in economic modelling: transformation, translation and appropriate application Pharmacoeconomics 2007 25 1 3 6 10.2165/00019053-200725010-00002 17192114 · DOI
- [27]Miller DK Homan SM Determining transition probabilities: confusion and suggestions Med Decis Making 1994 14 1 52 58 10.1177/0272989X9401400107 8152357 · DOI
- [28]Jones E Epstein D Garcia-Mochon L A procedure for deriving formulas to convert transition rates to probabilities for multistate Markov models Med Decis Making 2017 37 7 779 789 10.1177/0272989X17696997 28379779 PMC5582645 · DOI
- [30]Craig BA, Sendi PP. Estimation of the transition matrix of a discrete-time Markov chain. Health Econ. 2002;11(1):33–42. 11788980
- [31]Anguita M Arizon JM Valles F Influence of heart transplantation on the natural history of patients with severe congestive heart failure J Heart Lung Transpl 1993 12 6 Pt 1 974 982 8312322
- [32]Welton NJ Ades AE Estimation of Markov chain transition probabilities and rates from fully and partially observed data: uncertainty propagation, evidence synthesis, and model calibration Med Decis Making 2005 25 6 633 645 10.1177/0272989X05282637 16282214 · DOI · Paper page
- [33]Briggs A Sculpher M Claxton K Decision modelling for health economic evaluation 2006 Oxford Oxford University Press
- [34]Negrin MA Nam J Briggs AH Bayesian solutions for handling uncertainty in survival extrapolation Med Decis Making 2017 37 4 367 376 10.1177/0272989X16650669 27281336 · DOI
- [36]Greenland S. Concepts and pitfalls in measuring and interpreting attributable fractions, prevented fractions, and causation probabilities. Annals of Epidemiology 2015;25:xs155–161. 25498918
- [37]Flegal KM Panagiotou OA Graubard BI Estimating population attributable fractions to quantify the health burden of obesity Ann Epidemiol 2015 25 201 207 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.11.010 25511307 PMC4383168 · DOI · Paper page
- [38]Sendi PP Clemen RT Sensitivity analysis on a chance node with more than two branches Med Decis Making 1999 19 4 499 502 10.1177/0272989X9901900418 10520688 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alarid-Escudero, F., Krijkamp, E., Enns, E. A., Yang, A., Hunink, M. G. M., Pechlivanoglou, P., & Jalal, H. (2023) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x221121747 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gidwani, R., & Russell, L. B.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gidwani, Risha
- Venue
- PharmacoEconomics
- Published
- 2020-08-14
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1153-1164
- ISSN
- 1170-7690 (ISSN-L)
- 1179-2027
- PMC
- PMC7426391
- OpenAlex
- W3049484804
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8
- FWCI
- 6.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2020-09-08)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PharmacoEconomics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- transition probabilities, state transition model, cost-effectiveness model, relative risk, odds ratio, odds, rates, subpopulations, sensitivity analysis, uncertainty, health state transitions
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Making, Humans, Probability, Publishing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review