BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Andrea Gabrio

Andrea Gabrio contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ApplicationsMethodology

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A review of heath economic evaluation practice in the Netherlands: are we moving forward?

In 2016, the Dutch National Health Care Institute issued new guidelines that aggregated and updated previous recommendations on key elements for conducting economic evaluation. However, the impact on standard practice after the introduction of the guidelines in terms of design, methodology and reporting choices, is still uncertain. To assess this impact, we examine and compare key analysis components of economic evaluations conducted in the Netherlands before (2010-2015) and after (2016-2020) the introduction of the guidelines. We specifically focus on two aspects of the analysis that are crucial in determining the plausibility of the results: statistical methodology and missing data handling. Our review shows how many components of economic evaluations have changed in accordance with the new recommendations towards more transparent and advanced analytic approaches. However, potential limitations are identified in terms of the statistical software and information provided to support the choice of missing data methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Linear mixed models to handle missing at random data in trial-based economic evaluations

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are an important source of evidence in the assessment of health interventions. In these studies, cost and effectiveness outcomes are commonly measured at multiple time points, but some observations may be missing. Restricting the analysis to the participants with complete data can lead to biased and inefficient estimates. Methods, such as multiple imputation, have been recommended as they make better use of the data available and are valid under less restrictive Missing At Random (MAR) assumption. Linear mixed effects models (LMMs) offer a simple alternative to handle missing data under MAR without requiring imputations, and have not been very well explored in the CEA context. In this manuscript, we aim to familiarise readers with LMMs and demonstrate their implementation in CEA. We illustrate the approach on a randomised trial of antidepressant, and provide the implementation code in R and Stata. We hope that the more familiar statistical framework associated with LMMs, compared to other missing data approaches, will encourage their implementation and move practitioners away from inadequate methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Joint longitudinal models for dealing with missing at random data in trial-based economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations based on patient-level data collected alongside clinical trials~(e.g. health related quality of life and resource use measures) are an important component of the process which informs resource allocation decisions. Almost inevitably, the analysis is complicated by the fact that some individuals drop out from the study, which causes their data to be unobserved at some time point. Current practice performs the evaluation by handling the missing data at the level of aggregated variables (e.g. QALYs), which are obtained by combining the economic data over the duration of the study, and are often conducted under a missing at random (MAR) assumption. However, this approach may lead to incorrect inferences since it ignores the longitudinal nature of the data and may end up discarding a considerable amount of observations from the analysis. We propose the use of joint longitudinal models to extend standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods by taking into account the longitudinal structure and incorporate all available data to improve the estimation of the targeted quantities under MAR. Our approach is compared to popular missingness approaches in trial-based analyses, motivated by an exploratory simulation study, and applied to data from two real case studies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access