Expected Value of Sample Information Calculations in Medical Decision Modeling
Abstract
There has been an increasing interest in using expected value of information (EVI) theory in medical decision making, to identify the need for further research to reduce uncertainty in decision and as a tool for sensitivity analysis. Expected value of sample information (EVSI) has been proposed for determination of optimum sample size and allocation rates in randomized clinical trials. This article derives simple Monte Carlo, or nested Monte Carlo, methods that extend the use of EVSI calculations to medical decision applications with multiple sources of uncertainty, with particular attention to the form in which epidemiological data and research findings are structured. In particular, information on key decision parameters such as treatment efficacy are invariably available on measures of relative efficacy such as risk differences or odds ratios, but not on model parameters themselves. In addition, estimates of model parameters and of relative effect measures in the literature may be heterogeneous, reflecting additional sources of variation besides statistical sampling error. The authors describe Monte Carlo procedures for calculating EVSI for probability, rate, or continuous variable parameters in multi parameter decision models and approximate methods for relative measures such as risk differences, odds ratios, risk ratios, and hazard ratios. Where prior evidence is based on a random effects meta-analysis, the authors describe different ESVI calculations, one relevant for decisions concerning a specific patient group and the other for decisions concerning the entire population of patient groups. They also consider EVSI methods for new studies intended to update information on both baseline treatment efficacy and the relative efficacy of 2 treatments. Although there are restrictions regarding models with prior correlation between parameters, these methods can be applied to the majority of probabilistic decision models. Illustrative worked examples of EVSI calculations are given in an appendix.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 [31]
Cites
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., & Rubin, D. B. (2013) · doi:10.1201/b16018 · Cited by 27,276 · see citing works
Bernardo, J. M., & Smith, A. F. M. (1994) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316870 · Cited by 2,178 · see citing works
Sterne, J. A. C. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7280.226 · Cited by 1,466 · see citing works
Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated
Thompson, S. G. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6965.1351 · Cited by 1,017 · see citing works
Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study
Smith, T. C., Spiegelhalter, D. J., & Thomas, A. (1995) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780142408 · Cited by 568 · see citing works
Warn, D. E., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1189 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ramsey, S. D., Willke, R. J., Glick, H., Reed, S. D., Augustovski, F., Jonsson, B., Briggs, A., & Sullivan, S. D. (2015) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001 · Cited by 811 · see citing works
Briggs, A. H., Weinstein, M. C., Fenwick, E. A. L., Karnon, J., Sculpher, M. J., & Paltiel, A. D. (2012) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.014 · Cited by 711 · see citing works
Pandor, A., Thokala, P., Gomersall, T., Baalbaki, H., Stevens, J., Wang, J., Wong, R., Brennan, A., & Fitzgerald, P. (2013) · Health Technol Assess · doi:10.3310/hta17320 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
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
- Ades, A. E., Lu, G., & Claxton, K.
- Affiliations
- Medical Research Council (GB)
- University of York (GB)
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 207-227
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2069629877
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 41.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- 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 Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- expected value of sample information, Monte Carlo methods, sensitivity analysis, treatment efficacy, risk difference, odds ratio, hazard ratio, random-effects meta-analysis, probabilistic decision model
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, United Kingdom, Monte Carlo Method, Models, Statistical, Odds Ratio, Information Management, Decision Support Systems, Clinical
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