Hostname: page-component-cd4964975-pf4mj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-27T15:10:09.354Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2013

Nicola J. Cooper
Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester
David Spiegelhalter
Laboratory Centre for Mathematical Sciences
Sylwia Bujkiewicz
Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester
Pascale Dequen
Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester
Alex J. Sutton
Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester


Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the use of implicit and explicit Bayesian methods in health technology assessments and to identify whether this has changed over time.

Methods: A review of all health technology assessment (HTA) reports of secondary research published by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) between 1997 and 2011. Data were extracted on the use and implementation of Bayesian methods, whether defined as such by the original authors (i.e., explicit) or not (i.e., implicit).

Results: A total of 155 of 375 (41 percent) NIHR HTA reports, identified as relevant to this review, contained a Bayesian analysis. Of these, 128 (83 percent) contained an implicit Bayesian analysis, 3 (2 percent) an explicit Bayesian analysis and 24 (15 percent) both implicit and explicit Bayesian analyses. Of the twenty-seven reports that explicitly used Bayes theorem, only six included prior information in the form of (informative) prior distributions. Over time, the percentage of HTA reports that used Bayesian (implicit and/or explicit) methods increased from 0 percent in 1997 to nearly 80 percent in 2011.

Conclusions: This review has shown that there has been an increase in the use of Bayesian methods in HTA, which is likely to be a result of the increase in freely available resources to implement the approach. Areas where Bayesian methods have the potential to advance healthcare evaluations in the future are considered in the discussion.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



1.Ashby, D. Bayesian statistics in medicine: A 25 year review. Stat Med. 2006;25:35893631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Buxton, MJ, Drummond, MF, Van Hout, BA, et al.Modelling in economic evaluation: An unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1997;6:217227.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Hunink, M, Glasziou, P, Siegel, J, et al.Decision making in health and medicine: Integrating evidence and values. 1st ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
4.Briggs, A, Sculpher, M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;13:397409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Spiegelhalter, DJ, Myles, JP, Jones, DR, Abrams, KR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: A review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1130.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Spiegelhalter, DJ, Myles, JP, Jones, DR, Abrams, KR. Methods in health service research: An introduction to Bayesian methods in health technology assessment. BMJ. 1999;319:508512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Bayes, T. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. 1763. MD Comput. 1991;8:157171.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Spiegelhalter, DJ, Abrams, KR, Myles, JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation (statistics in practice). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2004.Google Scholar
9.Ades, AE, Sculpher, M, Sutton, AJ, et al.Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Briggs, AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:479500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Claxton, K. Bayesian approaches to the value of information: Implications for the regulation of new pharmaceuticals. Health Econ. 1999;8:269274.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Gelman, A, Carlin, J, Stern, J, Rubin, D. Bayesian data analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1995.Google Scholar
13.Lumley, T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21:23132324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Caldwell, DM, Ades, AE, Higgins, JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005;331:897900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Cooper, NJ, Sutton, AJ, Lai, M, et al.How valuable are multiple treatment comparison methods in economic decision modelling? Value Health. 2011;14:371380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Spiegelhalter, DJ. Bayesian graphical modelling: A case study in monitoring health outcomes. J R Stat Soc Ser C. 1998;47:115133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Turner, RM, Spiegelhalter, DJ, Smith, GCS, Thompson, SG. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:2147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Sutton, AJ, Abrams, KR, Jones, DR, Sheldon, TA, Song, F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.Google Scholar
19.Spiegelhalter, D, Thomas, A, Best, N, Lunn, D. WinBUGS user manual: Version 1.4. Cambridge: MRC Biostatistics Unit; 2003.Google Scholar
20.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the single technology appraisal (STA) process. London: NICE; September 2006.Google Scholar
21.Wailoo, A, Pickstone, C. A review of the NICE single technology appraisal process. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield (Decision Support Unit); 2008.Google Scholar
22.National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2004.Google Scholar
23.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008.Google Scholar
24.Turner, D, Wailoo, A, Nicholson, K, Cooper, NJ, Sutton, AJ, Abrams, KR. Systematic review and economic decision modelling for the prevention and treatment of influenza A and B. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii1v.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Burch, J, Paulden, M, Conti, S, et al.Antiviral drugs for the treatment of influenza: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Ara, R, Blake, L, Gray, L, et al.What is the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using drugs in treating obese patients in primary care? Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:iiixiv.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.O'Meara, S, Riemsma, R, Shirran, L, Mather, L, ter Riet, G. A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.O'Meara, S, Riemsma, R, Shirran, L, Mather, L, ter Riet, G. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sibutramine in the management of obesity: A technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6;197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Dequen, P, editor. What is relevant clinical evidence in HTA? A critical review of international HTA guidelines in Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. 9th HTAi Annual Meeting; 2012; Euskalduna Conference Centre and Concert Hall, Bilbao, Spain.Google Scholar
30.The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. HTA Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 2006. 3rd edition (accessed October 1, 2011).Google Scholar
31.Haute Autorité De Santé. L'évaluation économique à la Haute Autorité de Santé Principes et méthodes 2010. (accessed October 1, 2011).Google Scholar
32.Fröschl, B, Brunner-Ziegler, S, Conrads-Frank, A, et al. Methodenhandbuch für Health Technology Assessment Vorab-Version 1.2012 (pre-release). 2012. (accessed April 1, 2011).Google Scholar
33.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Prepublication draft copy. Rockville, Maryland, US. 2011. (accessed April 1, 2012).Google Scholar
34.Scottish Medicines Consortium. Guidance to manufacturers for completion of new product assessment form. 2012. (accessed April 1, 2012).Google Scholar
35.Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (version 4.3). 2008. (accessed October 1, 2011).Google Scholar
36.Drummond, M, Iglesias, CP, Cooper, NJ. Systematic reviews and economic evaluations conducted for NICE in the UK: A game of two halves Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:146150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Novielli, N, Cooper, NJ, Sutton, AJ, Abrams, KR. How is evidence on test performance synthesised in economic decision models of diagnostic tests? A systematic appraisal of Health Technology Assessments in the UK since 1997. Value Health. 2010;13:952957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG. Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost-effectiveness modelling. Stat Med. 2003;22:36873709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Cooper, NJ, Sutton, AJ, Abrams, KR, Turner, D, Wailoo, A. Comprehensive decision analytical modelling in economic evaluation: A Bayesian approach. Health Econ. 2004;13:203226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Bujkiewicz, S, Jones, H, Lai, M, et al.Development of a Transparent Interactive Decision Interrogator to facilitate the decision making process in health care. Value Health. 2011;14:768776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Rodgers, M, Epstein, D, Bojke, L, et al.Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:ixxi.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Jackson, CH, Thompson, SG, Sharples, LD. Accounting for uncertainty in health economic decision models by using model averaging. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2009;172:383404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BP, van der Linde, A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 2002;64:583639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cooper et al. supplementary material


Download Cooper et al. supplementary material(File)
File 40 KB