This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Mark R. Goldstein, MD
Crozer Cottage Crozer-Chester Medical Center Chester, Pa

JAMA. 1990;263(11):1491-1492.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

In the October 6 issue of JAMA, Dr Detsky¹ performed a cost-effective analysis of seven selected clinical trials and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness for performing these trials, expressed as dollars per life-year extended. He concluded that this selected group of clinical trials was a good investment and suggested that government policymakers consider this information when allocating funds for medical research. I agree with Dr Detsky that the selected trials were a good investment but disagree that they were cost-effective from the standpoint of number of years of life saved.

The combined cost of all seven trials selected was $272 million. Two primary prevention trials selected, the Lipid Research Clinics-Coronary Primary Prevention Trial and the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, cost $260 million and, therefore, represent 96% of the total cost of all seven trials selected. Unfortunately, life was not extended in either of these primary prevention . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?