WORK PACKAGE 6
Methodological guidance on the analysis and interpretation of non-randomised studies to inform health economic evaluation
Objectives
-
Investigate the extent to which the findings of randomised and non-randomised studies differ when conducted for the same clinical question and explore potential reasons for observed discrepancies, in particular choice of analytical method
-
Assess whether different analytical methods used in non-randomised studies are likely to produce valid and unbiased estimates of relative effectiveness (a key input to economic evaluations)
-
Provide findings as methodological recommendations that help HTA agencies, regulators and the wider research community and other interested stakeholders to analyse and interpret non-randomised data in economic evaluations
Methodology
-
Perform a large-scale meta-epidemiological review to obtain estimates of the discrepancy in treatment effects in randomised and non-randomised studies using various analytical methods
-
Develop empirically based recommendations that include input from international stakeholders gathered from a series of workshops
-
Pilot test recommendations using published NICE guidance
Outcomes
-
A peer-reviewed publication with the results of a meta-epidemiological study comparing effect sizes in randomised and non-randomised studies
-
A set of empirically based recommendations on the analysis and interpretation of non-randomised studies and their analytical methods for economic evaluations
Research Update
January 2019 – IMPACT HTA 2nd Project Meeting (Presentation PDF)
Leads
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
London School of Economics and Political Science
Principal Investigators