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?

Dennis G. Fryback, PhD
University of Wisconsin Madison

Joanna E. Siegel, ScD; Milton C. Weinstein, PhD
Harvard University Boston, Mass

Willard G. Manning, Jr, PhD
University of Minnesota Minneapolis

George W. Torrance, PhD
McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario

Louise B. Russell, PhD
Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ

Donald L. Patrick, PhD
University of Washington Seattle

JAMA. 1997;277(24):1933.

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

In Reply.

—Drs Stinnett and Mullahy provide a helpful illustration of the problems that occur when standard cost-effectiveness calculations lead to a negative C/E ratio. Negative ratios occur in a cost-effectiveness analysis when 1 of the 2 alternatives being compared dominates the other, ie, 1 of the alternatives is both less costly and more effective than the other. Trouble arises when part of the legitimate range of uncertainty about the cost difference or the difference in effectiveness between the 2 alternatives includes cases in which 1 alternative dominates the other.

Stinnett and Mullahy rightly point out that computing a CI for the C/E ratio does not circumvent the basic problem that it is inappropriate to compute a C/E ratio in this circumstance and advocate the alternative of using net benefit rather than a C/E ratio.

From the terminology, it would seem that Stinnett and Mullahy are advocating the use of cost-benefit analysis, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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