A Systematic Review of Methods to Incorporate External Evidence into Trial-Based Survival Extrapolations for Health Technology Assessment

Author:

Bullement Ash12ORCID,Stevenson Matthew D.1,Baio Gianluca3,Shields Gemma E.4ORCID,Latimer Nicholas R.1

Affiliation:

1. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, UK

2. Delta Hat Limited, Nottingham, UK

3. Department of Statistical Science, University College London, UK

4. School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, UK

Abstract

Background External evidence is commonly used to inform survival modeling for health technology assessment (HTA). While there are a range of methodological approaches that have been proposed, it is unclear which methods could be used and how they compare. Purpose This review aims to identify, describe, and categorize established methods to incorporate external evidence into survival extrapolation for HTA. Data Sources Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify published methodological studies, supplemented by hand searching and citation tracking. Study Selection Eligible studies were required to present a novel extrapolation approach incorporating external evidence (i.e., data or information) within survival model estimation. Data Extraction Studies were classified according to how the external evidence was integrated as a part of model fitting. Information was extracted concerning the model-fitting process, key requirements, assumptions, software, application contexts, and presentation of comparisons with, or validation against, other methods. Data Synthesis Across 18 methods identified from 22 studies, themes included use of informative prior(s) ( n = 5), piecewise ( n = 7), and general population adjustment ( n = 9), plus a variety of “other” ( n = 8) approaches. Most methods were applied in cancer populations ( n = 13). No studies compared or validated their method against another method that also incorporated external evidence. Limitations As only studies with a specific methodological objective were included, methods proposed as part of another study type (e.g., an economic evaluation) were excluded from this review. Conclusions Several methods were identified in this review, with common themes based on typical data sources and analytical approaches. Of note, no evidence was found comparing the identified methods to one another, and so an assessment of different methods would be a useful area for further research. Highlights This review aims to identify methods that have been used to incorporate external evidence into survival extrapolations, focusing on those that may be used to inform health technology assessment. We found a range of different approaches, including piecewise methods, Bayesian methods using informative priors, and general population adjustment methods, as well as a variety of “other” approaches. No studies attempted to compare the performance of alternative methods for incorporating external evidence with respect to the accuracy of survival predictions. Further research investigating this would be valuable.

Funder

Yorkshire Cancer Research

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Reference41 articles.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3