Abstract:The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is a well accepted measure of cost-effectiveness in health sciences. Due to the complexity of a ratio of random variables, constructing an appropriate confidence interval for the ICER is challenging. Many methods have been proposed, yet systematic comparisons of these methods are rare. Also, there have been conflicting recommendations for the optimum methodology. Polsky et al. (Health Econ. 6:243–252, 1997) and Briggs et al. (Stat. Med. 18:3245–3262, 1999) have performed simulation studies comparing four and eight methods, respectively. Cook and Heyse (Stat. Med. 19:2989–3003, 2000) have proposed an angular transformation for addressing the problem of improper ordering of ICER estimates using bootstrap resampling, and compared several methods with and without the transformation. In this paper we have conducted an extensive simulation to compare the most commonly used methods as well as new methods that have not yet been evaluated in the aforementioned simulation studies. We simulated samples from a wide range of distributions, and considered the less desired scenarios when the true standardized incremental effect was near zero. The results suggest that confidence intervals based on Fieller’s method, bootstrap-percentile method, and bootstrap-standard method consistently yield reasonable coverage percentages across different sample distributions. Other methods depend heavily on sample sizes, as well as how far the standardized incremental effect is away from zero. Confidence intervals based on the transformed methods are exceptionally problematic when the standardized incremental effect is small. We have also illustrated our results with a real example.

A Comparison of Statistical Methods to Construct Confidence Intervals and Fiducial Intervals for Measures of Health Disparities

A simulation study to compare methods for constructing confidence intervals for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

Bayesian, frequentist and fiducial intervals for the difference between two binomial proportions

Approximate confidence interval construction for risk difference under inverse sampling

A Comparison of Green, Delta, and Monte Carlo Methods to Select an Optimal Approach for Calculating the 95% Confidence Interval of the Population-attributable Fraction: Guidance for Epidemiological Research

An optimal exact confidence interval for the difference of two independent binomial proportions

Asymptotic confidence interval construction for risk difference under inverse sampling

A Comparative Study on the Interval Estimation for Relative Difference

Fiducial Inference in the Classical Errors-in-variables Model

Accurate interval estimation for the risk difference in an incomplete correlated 2 × 2 table: Calf immunity analysis.

Homogeneity tests and interval estimations of risk differences for stratified bilateral and unilateral correlated data

Fiducial Inference for Estimating the Confidence Limits of Population's Percentile and Percentage

Comparisons of various estimates of the [math] statistic for quantifying between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis

Reference interval estimation: Methodological comparison using extensive simulations and empirical data

Exact Confidence Intervals for Linear Combinations of Multinomial Probabilities

Identification-robust methods for comparing inequality with an application to regional disparities

Asymptotic Distribution and Simultaneous Confidence Bands for Ratios of Quantile Functions

Confidence intervals for heterogeneity in meta-analysis of the rare binary events based on empirical likelihood-type methods

Simultaneous Confidence Intervals for Mean Differences of Multiple Zero-Inflated Gamma Distributions with Applications to Precipitation

Bridging Bayesian, frequentist and fiducial (BFF) inferences using confidence distribution

Uncertainty Quantification and Confidence Intervals for Naive Rare-Event Estimators