Cited by 140Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementDelphi Technique in Research

Performing Cost-Effectiveness Analysis by Integrating Randomized Trial Data with a Comprehensive Decision Model

Samsa, Gregory P., Reutter, Richard A., Parmigiani, Giovanni, Ancukiewicz, Marek, Abrahamse, Paul, Lipscomb, Joseph, Matchar, David B.·1999·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

A recent national panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine has recommended that cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should reflect the effect of treatments on long-term outcomes. Because the follow-up period of RCTs tends to be relatively short, long-term implications of treatments must be assessed using other sources. We used a comprehensive simulation model of the natural history of stroke to estimate long-term outcomes after a hypothetical RCT of an acute stroke treatment. The RCT generates estimates of short-term quality-adjusted survival and cost and also the pattern of disability at the conclusion of follow-up. The simulation model incorporates the effect of disability on long-term outcomes, thus supporting a comprehensive CEA. Treatments that produce relatively modest improvements in the pattern of outcomes after ischemic stroke are likely to be cost-effective. This conclusion was robust to modifying the assumptions underlying the analysis. More effective treatments in the acute phase immediately following stroke would generate significant public health benefits, even if these treatments have a high price and result in relatively small reductions in disability. Simulation-based modeling can provide the critical link between a treatment's short-term effects and its long-term implications and can thus support comprehensive CEA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00151-6

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Samsa, G. P., Reutter, R. A., Parmigiani, G., Ancukiewicz, M., Abrahamse, P., Lipscomb, J., & Matchar, D. B.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Samsa, Gregory P.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-03
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
259-271
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W179951671
Cited by
140
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
FWCI
15.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
cost-effectiveness analysis, randomized controlled trials, simulation-based modeling, ischemic stroke, acute stroke care, long-term outcomes, disability, quality-adjusted survival
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Brain Ischemia, Computer Simulation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Support Techniques, Disability Evaluation, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, United States, Survival Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Models, Economic, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

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