Methods to place a value on additional evidence are illustrated using a case study of corticosteroids after traumatic brain injury

Claire McKenna, Susan Griffin, Hendrik Koffijberg, Karl Claxton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademic

2 Citations (Scopus)
15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: To establish whether evidence about the effectiveness of a health care intervention is sufficient to justify the use of the intervention in practice and show how value of information (VOI) analysis can be used to place a value on the need for additional evidence and inform research prioritization decisions.

Study Design and Setting: Meta-analysis provides an estimate of the effect of an intervention with uncertainty. VOI analysis determines the adverse health consequences of not resolving this uncertainty. A case study examining the evidence before the high profile trial of Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) shows the consequences on patient outcomes if this trial had not been successfully funded.

Results: The consequences of uncertainty before CRASH were high at 40 deaths and 1,067 years of full health per annum. VOI analysis indicates that CRASH was worthwhile and the UK National Health Service would have had to spend an additional £205 million elsewhere to generate health benefits similar to CRASH.

Conclusions: VOI analysis can be integrated with the results of meta-analysis to help inform whether a particular research proposal is potentially worthwhile and whether it should be prioritized over other research topics that could be commissioned with the same resources
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of clinical epidemiology
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Random Allocation
Craniocerebral Trauma
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
Uncertainty
Meta-Analysis
Health
National Health Programs
Insurance Benefits
Research
Research Design
Delivery of Health Care
Traumatic Brain Injury

Keywords

  • Research prioritization
  • Uncertainty
  • Value of information analysis
  • Meta-analysis
  • Corticosteroids
  • Head injury

Cite this

@article{306144fcb888437788b2eda26dbd466b,
title = "Methods to place a value on additional evidence are illustrated using a case study of corticosteroids after traumatic brain injury",
abstract = "Objectives: To establish whether evidence about the effectiveness of a health care intervention is sufficient to justify the use of the intervention in practice and show how value of information (VOI) analysis can be used to place a value on the need for additional evidence and inform research prioritization decisions.Study Design and Setting: Meta-analysis provides an estimate of the effect of an intervention with uncertainty. VOI analysis determines the adverse health consequences of not resolving this uncertainty. A case study examining the evidence before the high profile trial of Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) shows the consequences on patient outcomes if this trial had not been successfully funded.Results: The consequences of uncertainty before CRASH were high at 40 deaths and 1,067 years of full health per annum. VOI analysis indicates that CRASH was worthwhile and the UK National Health Service would have had to spend an additional £205 million elsewhere to generate health benefits similar to CRASH.Conclusions: VOI analysis can be integrated with the results of meta-analysis to help inform whether a particular research proposal is potentially worthwhile and whether it should be prioritized over other research topics that could be commissioned with the same resources",
keywords = "Research prioritization, Uncertainty, Value of information analysis, Meta-analysis, Corticosteroids, Head injury",
author = "Claire McKenna and Susan Griffin and Hendrik Koffijberg and Karl Claxton",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.011",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of clinical epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Methods to place a value on additional evidence are illustrated using a case study of corticosteroids after traumatic brain injury. / McKenna, Claire; Griffin, Susan; Koffijberg, Hendrik; Claxton, Karl.

In: Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademic

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methods to place a value on additional evidence are illustrated using a case study of corticosteroids after traumatic brain injury

AU - McKenna, Claire

AU - Griffin, Susan

AU - Koffijberg, Hendrik

AU - Claxton, Karl

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Objectives: To establish whether evidence about the effectiveness of a health care intervention is sufficient to justify the use of the intervention in practice and show how value of information (VOI) analysis can be used to place a value on the need for additional evidence and inform research prioritization decisions.Study Design and Setting: Meta-analysis provides an estimate of the effect of an intervention with uncertainty. VOI analysis determines the adverse health consequences of not resolving this uncertainty. A case study examining the evidence before the high profile trial of Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) shows the consequences on patient outcomes if this trial had not been successfully funded.Results: The consequences of uncertainty before CRASH were high at 40 deaths and 1,067 years of full health per annum. VOI analysis indicates that CRASH was worthwhile and the UK National Health Service would have had to spend an additional £205 million elsewhere to generate health benefits similar to CRASH.Conclusions: VOI analysis can be integrated with the results of meta-analysis to help inform whether a particular research proposal is potentially worthwhile and whether it should be prioritized over other research topics that could be commissioned with the same resources

AB - Objectives: To establish whether evidence about the effectiveness of a health care intervention is sufficient to justify the use of the intervention in practice and show how value of information (VOI) analysis can be used to place a value on the need for additional evidence and inform research prioritization decisions.Study Design and Setting: Meta-analysis provides an estimate of the effect of an intervention with uncertainty. VOI analysis determines the adverse health consequences of not resolving this uncertainty. A case study examining the evidence before the high profile trial of Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) shows the consequences on patient outcomes if this trial had not been successfully funded.Results: The consequences of uncertainty before CRASH were high at 40 deaths and 1,067 years of full health per annum. VOI analysis indicates that CRASH was worthwhile and the UK National Health Service would have had to spend an additional £205 million elsewhere to generate health benefits similar to CRASH.Conclusions: VOI analysis can be integrated with the results of meta-analysis to help inform whether a particular research proposal is potentially worthwhile and whether it should be prioritized over other research topics that could be commissioned with the same resources

KW - Research prioritization

KW - Uncertainty

KW - Value of information analysis

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Corticosteroids

KW - Head injury

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.011

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.011

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of clinical epidemiology

JF - Journal of clinical epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -