Reporting Cost-effectiveness Analyses With Confidence-Reply
Joanna E. Siegel, ScD;
Milton C. Weinstein, PhD
Harvard University Boston, Mass
Dennis G. Fryback, PhD
University of Wisconsin Madison
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
Marthe R. Gold, MD, MPH
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion US Public Health Service Washington, DC for the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
JAMA. 1997;277(5):375.
|
|
| 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.
—The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine has recommended that summary tables reporting incremental cost-effectiveness exclude ratios for dominated alternatives.1,2 Drs Sacristán and Obenchain correctly point out that, even if a medical intervention is judged on the basis of baseline estimates to be dominated by another intervention (eg, to have higher cost but produce less health benefit than the other), the conclusion of dominance may be premature owing to uncertainties in baseline parameters. Sacristán and Obenchain would recommend use of CIs for reported cost-effectiveness ratios on all alternatives.
Our specific recommendation that cost-effectiveness ratios should not appear for dominated alternatives is intended to reduce confusion concerning the interpretation of cost-effectiveness results tables. The calculation of base-case results for the efficient options (those not dominated under the main assumptions in the analysis) is less transparent if ratios for dominated programs are included in cost-effectiveness tables.
Sacristán and Obenchain's main
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
|
