Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 3/2011

01-03-2011 | Practical Application

Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1)

Author: Dr Henry A. Glick

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 3/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Basic sample size and power formulae for cost-effectiveness analysis have been established in the literature. These formulae are reviewed and the similarities and differences between sample size and power for cost-effectiveness analysis and for the analysis of other continuous variables such as changes in blood pressure or weight are described. The types of sample size and power tables that are commonly calculated for cost-effectiveness analysis are also described and the impact of varying the assumed parameter values on the resulting sample size and power estimates is discussed. Finally, the way in which the data for these calculations may be derived are discussed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, et al. Economic evaluation in clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
2.
Glick HA. Sample size and power for cost-effectiveness analysis (part 2): the effect of maximum willingness to pay. Pharmacoeconomics. In press
3.
Willan AR. Analysis, sample size, and power for estimating incremental net health benefit from clinical trial data. Control Clin Trials 2001; 22: 228–37PubMedCrossRef
4.
Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1986: 369
5.
Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: S68–80CrossRef
6.
Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, et al. What is the price of life and why doesn’t it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 41CrossRef
7.
Devlin N, Parkin D. Does NICE have a cost-effectiveness threshold and what other factors influence its decisions? A binary choice analysis. Health Econ 2004; 13: 437–52
8.
Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004; 7: 518–28PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Dedes KJ, Matter-Walstra K, Schwenkglenks M, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: an economic evaluation. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 1397–406PubMedCrossRef
11.
O’Hagan A, Stevens JW. Bayesian assessment of sample size for clinical trials of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 219–30PubMed
12.
McIntosh MW, Ramsey SD, Berry K, et al. Parameter solicitation for planning cost effectiveness studies with dichotomous outcomes. Health Econ 2001; 10: 53–66PubMedCrossRef
13.
Polsky D, Glick HA, Willke R, et al. Confidence intervals for cost effectiveness ratios: a comparison of four methods. Health Econ 1997; 6: 243–52PubMedCrossRef
14.
Briggs AH, Gray AM. Power and sample size calculations for stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: S81–92CrossRef
15.
Briggs A, Tambour M. The design and analysis of stochastic cost-effectiveness studies for the evaluation of health care interventions (Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 234). Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics, 1998
16.
Laska EM, Meisner M, Siegel C. Power and sample size in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1999; 19: 339–43PubMedCrossRef
17.
Willan AR, O’Brien BJ. Sample sample size and power issues in estimating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials data. Health Econ 1999; 8: 203–11PubMedCrossRef
18.
Gardiner JC, Huebner M, Jetton J, et al. Power and sample size assessments for tests of hypotheses on cost-effectiveness ratios. Health Econ 2000; 9: 227–34PubMedCrossRef
19.
Koerkamp BG, Spronk S, Stijnen T, et al. Value of information analyses of economic randomized controlled trials: the treatment of intermittent claudication. Value Health 2010; 13: 242–50PubMedCrossRef
20.
Gafni A, Walter SD, Birch S, et al. An opportunity cost approach to sample size calculation in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2008; 17: 99–107PubMedCrossRef
21.
Al MJ, Van Hout BA, Michel BC, et al. Sample size calculation in economic evaluations. Health Econ 1998; 7: 327–35PubMedCrossRef
22.
Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006
Metadata
Title
Sample Size and Power for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (Part 1)
Author
Dr Henry A. Glick
Publication date
01-03-2011
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11585070-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

PharmacoEconomics 3/2011 Go to the issue

Commentary

Including Indirect Medical Care Costs from Survivor Years of Life in Economic Evaluations

Original Research Article

Comparing Methods of Data Synthesis

Review Article

Advances in Cancer Therapeutics and Patient Access to New Drugs

Review Article

Cost Effectiveness of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccination against Acute Otitis Media in Children

Leading Article

Standardizing the Inclusion of Indirect Medical Costs in Economic Evaluations

Adis Pharmacoeconomic Drug Evaluation

Posaconazole