Back

Efficient patient-level health economic modelling in Excel without VBA: A Tutorial

Blissett, R. S.; Sullivan, W.; Subban, I.; Igloi-Nagy, A.

2025-06-20 health economics
10.1101/2025.06.18.25329835 medRxiv
Show abstract

Cohort-level models in Microsoft Excel(R) remain the standard for cost-effectiveness modelling to inform health technology assessment (HTA), despite calls and rationale for more flexible approaches. Their limited ability to capture patient-level characteristics can, in the presence of patient heterogeneity or the need to track patient characteristics to accurately capture a technologys implications, introduce bias. Their continued prevalence is explained by key stakeholders familiarity with spreadsheet software, and the lower computational burden of cohort-level versus patient-level models. However, contemporary Excel functions have opened up possibilities for efficient calculations within native Excel that enable more flexible, patient-level approaches to be implemented in familiar spreadsheet-based software. Therefore, this tutorial aims to provide step-by-step guidance on how to implement a previously published and freely available individual-level discrete event simulation (DES) in Excel, using contemporary Excel functions and without any Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) code. Key Points for Decision-MakersO_LIPerceived and real requirements for cost-effectiveness models for HTA to be built in Excel may have led to overuse of cohort-level approaches, with probable bias implications for HTA decision-making. C_LIO_LIContemporary Excel functions now allow the efficient implementation and execution of patient-level model calculations within native Excel, without any VBA code. Such capabilities may reduce technical barriers across key stakeholders, enhance transparency, and ultimately lead to improvements in HTA decision-making. C_LIO_LIThis tutorial demonstrates provides step-by-step guidance on how to implement an efficient patient-level cost-effectiveness model in Excel without any VBA, with an executable model example included as supplementary material. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
23.1%
2
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.7%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.5%
4
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.8%
5
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
6
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 9%
3.7%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.7%
9
Journal of Medical Economics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
10
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
11
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
13
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
14
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Research Synthesis Methods
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
16
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
17
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
18
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
19
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.4%
20
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
21
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
22
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
23
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
24
Eye
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
25
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
26
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
27
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
28
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%