State-transition modeling (STM) is an intuitive, flexible, and transparent approach of computer-based decision-analytic modeling, including both Markov model cohort simulation as well as individual-based (first-order Monte Carlo) microsimulation. Conceptualizing a decision problem in terms of a set of (health) states and transitions among these states, STM is one of the most widespread modeling techniques in clinical decision analysis, health technology assessment, and health-economic evaluation. STMs have been used in many different populations and diseases, and their applications range from personalized health care strategies to public health programs. Most frequently, state-transition models are used in the evaluation of risk factor interventions, screening, diagnostic procedures, treatment strategies, and disease management programs.
CaroJJBriggsAHSiebertUKuntzKM. Modeling good research practices—overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–1. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):667–677.
2.
RobertsMRussellLBPaltielADChambersMMcEwanPKrahnM. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–2. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):678–689.
3.
KarnonJStahlJBrennanACaroJJMarJMöllerJ. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–4. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):701–711.
4.
PitmanRFismanDZaricGS. Dynamic transmission modeling: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group–5. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):712–721.
5.
BriggsAHWeinsteinMCFenwickEALKarnonJSculpherMJPaltielAD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group–6. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):722–732.
6.
EddyDMHollingworthWCaroJJTsevatJMcDonaldKMWongJB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force–7. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(5):733–743.
7.
BeckJRPaukerSG. The Markov process in medical prognosis. Med Decis Making. 1983;3:419–58.
8.
SonnenbergFABeckJR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:322–38.
9.
SpielauerM. Dynamic microsimulation of health care demand, health care finance and the economic impact of health behaviours: survey and review. Int J Microsimuation. 2007;1:35–53.
10.
Groot KoerkampBWeinsteinMCStijnenTHeijenbrok-KalMHHuninkMG. Uncertainty and patient heterogeneity in medical decision models. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:194–205.
11.
WeinsteinMC. Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1043–53.
12.
HuninkMGMGlasziouPSiegelJE. Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
13.
CaroJJ. Pharmacoeconomic analysis using discrete event simulation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:323–32.
14.
SiebertU. When should decision-analytic modeling be used in the economic evaluation of health care?Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4:143–50.
15.
ColNFEckmanMHKarasRH. Patient-specific decisions about hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. JAMA. 1997;277:1140–7.
16.
EddyDM. Screening for Cancer: Theory, Analysis and Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall;1980.
17.
RussellLB. Educated Guesses: Making Policy about Medical Screening Tests. Los Angeles: University of California Press;1994.
18.
GrillEHesselFSiebertU. Comparing the clinical effectiveness of different new-born hearing screening strategies: a decision analysis. BMC Public Health. 2005;5:12.
19.
GutierrezdeMesaEHidalgoIChristidisPCiscarJCVegasEIbarretaD. Modeling the impact of genetic screening technologies on healthcare: theoretical model for asthma in children. Mol Diagn Ther. 2007;11:313–20.
20.
MeckleyLMGudgeonJMAndersonJLWilliamsMSVeenstraDL. A policy model to evaluate the benefits, risks and costs of warfarin pharmacogenomic testing. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:61–74.
21.
RogowskiWH. The cost-effectiveness of screening for hereditary hemochromatosis in Germany: a remodeling study. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:224–38.
22.
GoldieSJKimJJMyersE. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. Vaccine. 2006;24:S164–70.
23.
LeeJMMcMahonPMKongCY. Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers. Radiology. 2010;254:793–800.
24.
SroczynskiGSchnell-InderstPMuhlbergerN. Cost-effectiveness of primary HPV screening for cervical cancer in Germany—a decision analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:1633–46.
25.
ZauberAGLansdorp-VogelaarIKnudsenABWilschutJvan BallegooijenMKuntzKM. Evaluating test strategies for colorectal cancer screening: a decision analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:659–69.
26.
SandersGDBayoumiAMSundaramV. Cost effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:570–85.
27.
SandersGDBayoumiAMHolodniyMOwensDK. Cost effectiveness of HIV screening in patients older than 55 years of age. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:889–903.
28.
TrikalinosTASiebertULauJ. Decision-analytic modeling to evaluate benefits and harms of medical tests: uses and limitations. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:E22–9.
29.
GouldMKSandersGDBarnettPG. Cost effectiveness of alternative management strategies for patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:724–35.
30.
HuninkMGMKuntzKMFleischmannKEBradyTJ. Noninvasive imaging for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: focusing the development of new diagnostic technology. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:673–80.
31.
CohenDJBakhaiAShiC. Cost-effectiveness of sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of complex coronary stenoses: results from the Sirolimus-Eluting Balloon Expandable Stent in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SIRIUS) trial. Circulation. 2004;110:508–14.
32.
SandersGDHlatkyMAOwensDK. Cost effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in primary prevention of sudden death. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1471–8.
33.
SiebertUSroczynskiG. German Hepatitis C Model (GEHMO) Group, HTA Expert Panel on Hepatitis C. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of initial combination therapy with interferon/peginterferon plus ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C in Germany: a health technology assessment commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security. Int J Tech Assess Health Care. 2005;21:55–65.
34.
FreedbergKAScharfsteinJASeageGRIII. The cost-effectiveness of preventing AIDS-related opportunistic infections. JAMA. 1998;279:130–6.
35.
BentleyTGKWeinsteinMCKuntzKM. Effects of categorizing continuous variables in decision-analytic models. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:549–56.
36.
LeeJM. Breast cancer screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers: effectiveness of MR imaging—Markov Monte Carlo decision analysis. Radiology. 2008;246:763–71.
37.
ClarkePMGrayAMBriggsA. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model. Diabetologia. 2004;47:1747–59.
38.
RobinsJMHernánMASiebertU. Estimations of the effects of multiple interventions. In: EzzatiMLopezADRodgersAMurrayCJL, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risk Factors. Vol. 1. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004. p 2191–230.
39.
PutermanML. Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics). New York: John Wiley; 1994.
40.
AlagozOHsuHSchaeferAJRobertsMS. Markov decision processes: a tool for sequential decision making under uncertainty. Med Decis Making. 2010;30:474–83.
41.
DewildeSAndersonR. The cost-effectiveness of screening programs using single and multiple birth cohort simulations: a comparison using a model of cervical cancer. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:486–92.
42.
LieuTAGurleyRJLundstromRJ. Projected cost-effectiveness of primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:1741–50.
43.
BerringtondeGonzalez KimKPKnudsenAB. Radiation-related cancer risks from CT colonography screening: a risk-benefit analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:816–23.
KuntzKMGoldieSJ. Assessing the sensitivity of decision-analytic results to unobserved markers of risk: defining the effects of heterogeneity bias. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:218–27.
46.
ZaricGS. The impact of ignoring population heterogeneity when Markov models are used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:379–86.
47.
SonnenbergFARobertsMSTsevatJ. Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Med Care. 1994;32(7, Suppl.):JS52–64.
48.
OwensDKLohrKNHelfandM. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—AHRQ and the effective health care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:513–23.
49.
GuyattGHOxmanADSchunemannHJTugwellPKnottnerusA. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:380–2.
50.
BalshemHHelfandMSchunemannHJ. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–6.
51.
MillerDKHomanSM. Determining transition probabilities: confusion and suggestions. Med Decis Making. 1994;14:52–8.
52.
KuntzKMWeinsteinMC. Life expectancy biases in clinical decision modeling. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:158–69.
53.
CoxEMartinBCVan StaaTGarbeESiebertUJohnsonML. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report—Part II. Value Health. 2009;12:1053–61.
54.
JohnsonMLCrownWMartinBCDormuthCRSiebertU. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report—Part III. Value Health. 2009;12:1062–73.
55.
KuntzKMWeinsteinMC. Modelling in economic evaluation. In: DrummondMMcGuireA, eds. Economic Evaluation in Health Care. Merging Theory with Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2001. p 141–71.
56.
StoutNKGoldieSJ. Keeping the noise down: common random numbers for disease simulation modeling. Health Care Manage Sci. 2008;11:399–406.
