Assessing the sensitivity of decision-analytic results to unobserved markers of risk: defining the effects of heterogeneity bias
Abstract
An important assumption made when constructing a Markov model is that all persons residing in a health state are identical. Failure to adjust for population heterogeneity caused by unobserved variables can therefore cause bias in model results. The authors used a simple model to evaluate the potential impact of heterogeneity bias, defined as the percentage change in the life expectancy gain with an intervention predicted by a model that does not adjust for heterogeneity (unadjusted model) compared to one that does (adjusted model). The life expectancy gains were consistently greater in the unadjusted model compared to the adjusted model (positive bias). For an annual probability of developing disease of 1%, the heterogeneity bias exceeded 50% when the relative risk of disease with the heterogeneity factor versus without the factor was greater than 15 and the prevalence of the heterogeneity factor was between 5% and 25%. When constructing decision-analytic models, analysts need to be cognizant of unobserved factors that introduce heterogeneity into the cohort. This analysis provides a general framework to determine when issues of heterogeneity may be important.
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?
Variables that affect transition probabilities but are not known at decision time, such as genetic mutation and undiagnosed infection, can create heterogeneity bias, and inclusion of such variables should be considered.
“Variables that affect transition probabilities but are not known at decision time (e.g., genetic mutation and undiagnosed infection) can create "heterogeneity bias" [45,46], and inclusion of such variables should be considered.”
From State-Transition Modeling: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-3 (2012) · cites this paper as [45]
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
Self-citation
- Authors
- KUNTZ, K. M., & Goldie, S. J.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- ORCID
- KUNTZ, Karen M.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-05-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 218-227
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 0000-0000
- OpenAlex
- W2122203485
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 7.32
- 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 Epidemiology
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- heterogeneity bias, Markov model, population heterogeneity, life expectancy gains, sensitivity analysis, unmeasured confounding, disease risk
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Humans, Markov Chains, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Risk, Sensitivity and Specificity, Disease-Free Survival
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