 |
|
Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Statistically Ineffective Treatments
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor.—Although the publication of guidelines1 has provided an important contribution to standardizing cost-effectiveness (CE) research, some methodological points still need clarification. In comparing treatment A (innovative treatment) with treatment B (reference treatment), a CE analysis is appropriate when A is more effective, ie, when the difference in clinical effectiveness between A and B is significant.
When the difference in clinical effectiveness is expressed in terms of a significant difference in survival, the CE analysis can be undertaken without difficulty. But when the difference is expressed as the difference between quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient treated with A minus QALYs per patient treated with B, the problem arises of whether a significant P value continues to be needed for conducting a CE analysis.
When available, primary data of quality-adjusted survival (ie, information on survival length and health-related quality of life collected from individual patients) do not pose any . . . [Full Text of this Article]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
Milton C. Weinstein, Joanna E. Siegel, Marthe R. Gold, Mark S. Kamlet, and Louise B. Russell
JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253-1258.
ABSTRACT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
A Comparison of Smoking Habits Among Medical and Nursing Students
Patkar et al.
Chest 2003;124:1415-1420.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
