Critical Analysis of Markov Models Used for the Economic Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review
Author
dc.contributor.author
Silva-Illanes, Nicolas
Author
dc.contributor.author
Espinoza, Manuel
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2019-05-31T15:19:14Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2019-05-31T15:19:14Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2018
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
Value in Health, Volumen 21, Issue 7, 2018, Pages 858-873
Identifier
dc.identifier.issn
15244733
Identifier
dc.identifier.issn
10983015
Identifier
dc.identifier.other
10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.010
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/169358
Abstract
dc.description.abstract
Background: The economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening is challenging because of the need to model the underlying
unobservable natural history of the disease. Objectives: To describe
the available Markov models and to critically analyze their main
structural assumptions. Methods: A systematic search was performed in eight relevant databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Econlit,
National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Health
Economic Evaluations Database, Health Technology Assessment
database, Cost-Effective Analysis Registry, and European Network
of Health Economics Evaluation Databases), identifying 34 models
that met the inclusion criteria. A comparative analysis of model
structure and parameterization was conducted using two checklists
and guidelines for cost-effectiveness screening models. Results:
Two modeling techniques were identified. One strategy used a
Markov model to reproduce the natural history of the disease and
an overlaying model that reproduced the screening process,
whereas the other used a single model to represent a screening
program. Most of the studies included only adenoma-carcinoma
sequences, a few included de novo cancer, and none included the
serrated pathway. Parameterization of adenoma dwell time, sojourn
time, and surveillance differed between studies, and there was a
lack of validation and statistical calibration against local epidemiological data. Most of the studies analyzed failed to perform an
adequate literature review and synthesis of diagnostic accuracy
properties of the screening tests modeled. Conclusions: Several
strategies to model colorectal cancer screening have been developed, but many challenges remain to adequately represent the
natural history of the disease and the screening process. Structural
uncertainty analysis could be a useful strategy for understanding
the impact of the assumptions of different models on cost-effectiveness results.