Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models
Abstract
Parameter uncertainty, patient heterogeneity, and stochastic uncertainty of outcomes are increasingly important concepts in medical decision models. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the various methods to analyze uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in a decision model. The authors distinguish various purposes of medical decision modeling, serving various stakeholders. Differences and analogies between the analyses are pointed out, as well as practical issues. The analyses are demonstrated with an example comparing imaging tests for patients with chest pain. For complicated analyses step-by-step algorithms are provided. The focus is on Monte Carlo simulation and value of information analysis. Increasing model complexity is a major challenge for probabilistic sensitivity analysis and value of information analysis. The authors discuss nested analyses that are required in patient-level models, and in nonlinear models for analyses of partial value of information analysis.
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?
The cohort and individual-based state-transition frameworks focused on in this report do not capture interactions, model a single closed cohort, and allow transitions to occur only at specified time intervals.
“These frameworks do not capture interactions, model a single (closed) cohort, and allow transitions to occur only at specified time intervals.”
From State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3 (2012) · cites this paper as [10]
Cites
Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values
Hunink, M. G. M., Weinstein, M. C., Wittenberg, E., Drummond, M. F., Pliskin, J. S., Wong, J. B., & Glasziou, P. P. (2014) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139506779 · Cited by 425 · cited 4× · see citing works
“We applied a halfcycle correction for all analyses.(11) Tables 1 to 3 in the Web appendix present all model parameters with their 95% uncertainty interval and sources.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
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) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x12455463 · Cited by 348 · see citing works
- Authors
- Groot Koerkamp, B., Weinstein, M. C., Stijnen, T., Heijenbrok-Kal, M. H., & Hunink, M. G. M.
- Affiliations
- Department of Surgery at Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Program for the Assessment of Radiological Technology, Departments of Radiology and Epidemiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Harvard University (US)
- Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
- Program in Health Decision Sciences, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-02-26
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 194-205
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2050301935
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 24.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- uncertainty analysis, patient heterogeneity, parameter uncertainty, aleatoric uncertainty, Monte Carlo simulation, value of information analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, nested analysis, nonlinear models, model complexity
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Cardiovascular Agents, Coronary Disease, Costs and Cost Analysis, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Male, Markov Chains, Middle Aged, Monte Carlo Method, Cohort Studies, Coronary Angiography, Uncertainty
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