Introduction
Health economics models are typically built in Microsoft Excel® owing to its wide familiarity, accessibility and perceived transparency. However, given the increasingly rapid and analytically complex decision-making needs of both the pharmaceutical industry and the field of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR), the demands of cost-effectiveness analyses may be better met by the programming language R.
Objective
This case study provides an explicit comparison between Excel and R for contemporary cost-effectiveness analysis.
Methods
We constructed duplicate cost-effectiveness models using Excel and R (with a user interface built using the Shiny package) to address a hypothetical case study typical of contemporary health technology assessment.
Results
We compared R and Excel versions of the same model design to determine the advantages and limitations of the modelling platforms in terms of (i) analytical capability, (ii) data safety, (iii) building considerations, (iv) usability for technical and non-technical users and (v) model adaptability.
Conclusions
The findings of this explicit comparison are used to produce recommendations for when R might be more suitable than Excel in contemporary cost-effectiveness analyses. We conclude that selection of appropriate modelling software needs to consider case-by-case modelling requirements, particularly (i) intended audience, (ii) complexity of analysis, (iii) nature and frequency of updates and (iv) anticipated model run time.
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)