Day 2

setup
read
scope
Author

Amy Heather

Published

August 1, 2024

Note

Upload materials, read article, and define scope. Total time used: 1h 41m (4.2%)

09.44-09.48, 09.52-09.56: Upload journal article and artefacts

The article is published at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-020-00616-2. I could not identify a copyright statement, but it links to RightsLink to request permission to reuse content (which requires payment).

Found the article on ProQuest - https://uoelibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/cost-effectiveness-case-detection-strategies/docview/2493869343/se-2?accountid=10792 - which states copyright pringer Nature B.V. Mar 2021.

Also identified a conference abstract on the same topic https://www.valueinhealthjournal.com/article/S1098-3015(20)31530-8/fulltext.

As such, it appears I would not have permissions to upload this article or any images from the article to this repository. As I cannot identify a green open-access version of the article, I will just be able to include cited text quotations.

10.38-10.47: Consensus on upload of code

RE: my uncertainty yesterday as to uploading code with commits more recent than the publication date, I discussed this with Tom, and we agreed that I should take a similar approach to as we do when we make environments for projects without them: start with the latest version of the code, and then if things don’t work, potentially go back in the commit history to help resolve it.

As such, I then uploaded a copy of the relevant branch of the repository to original_study/.

10.50-10.52: Update license

Switch to GNU General Public License version 3 to match original study. The requirements of this license are to:

  • Include a copy of the full license
  • State all significant changes made to the software
  • Make the original source code available when distributing binaries based on that work
  • Include a copy of the original copyright notice

It allows the code to be changed and distributed to others (as long as release under GPL v3 also).

10.53-11.01: Complete page about original study and license

As cannot upload anything from the study, just provided links.

11.09-11.22, 11.29-11.38, 12.04-12.24: Read the article and outline scope

Read through the article and identified scope as:

  • Table 3
  • Figure 3
  • Supp Appendix 6 (Figure)
  • Figure 4
  • Supp Appendix 7 (Figure)

There was one section of text not explicitly in the tables or figures, but it is an easy calculation from the values in Table 3, and so I feel the reproduction of Table 3 encompasses it. This was:

“This scenario (S1a) was associated with an incremental cost of $188 and an incremental effectiveness of 0.009 QALYs per eligible patient relative to the CDQ ≥ 16.5 points among ever smokers at 5-year intervals (S3b), resulting in an ICER of $22,044/QALY.”

  • This is just calculated from the table - $2438 - $2250 = $188
  • 12.560 - 12.552 = 0.008 (likely rounding related)
  • ICER = 188 / 0.008 = $23,500/QALY

I outlined this on the scope.qmd page.

Tom later emailed to confirm he was likewise happy with this scope.

Timings

import sys
sys.path.append('../')
from timings import calculate_times

# Minutes used prior to today
used_to_date = 32

# Times from today
times = [
    ('09.44', '09.48'),
    ('09.52', '09.56'),
    ('10.38', '10.47'),
    ('10.50', '10.52'),
    ('10.53', '11.01'),
    ('11.09', '11.22'),
    ('11.29', '11.38'),
    ('12.04', '12.24')]

calculate_times(used_to_date, times)
Time spent today: 69m, or 1h 9m
Total used to date: 101m, or 1h 41m
Time remaining: 2299m, or 38h 19m
Used 4.2% of 40 hours max