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?

Stephen F. Jencks, MD; Paul W. Eggers, PhD
Health Care Financing Administration Washington, DC

JAMA. 1990;263(11):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.—

Dr Detsky¹ provides a carefully designed analysis of how we might evaluate the cost-effectiveness of clinical trials in improving health. He argues, and Dr Fletcher² seems to concur, that the evidence of cost-effectiveness is so overwhelming that policymakers would provide more money for research if they understood the evidence. As Dr Fletcher points out, Dr Detsky substantially overstates the cost-effectiveness of trials because he does not include the cost of providing the tested treatment. A more serious problem, however, is that neither considers the extent to which the results of the trials actually change medical outcomes.

The impact of a clinical trial on outcomes tends to be limited by at least five factors: (1) physicians remain unaware of the results, (2) not all physicians agree as to what the trial "really" proved or whether the results are generalizable, (3) many physicians believe that changes in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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