Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10160486›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics1996

Choosing between competing health priorities. A government payer perspective.

J Leese

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

J LeeseDepartment of Health, London, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy makers in developed countries are increasingly having to look at how they are to control the cost of healthcare in the face of the pressures of an aging population, the introduction (and cost) of new technologies and the increasing expectations of patients. To some extent, costs can be contained by concentrating on those technologies with proven clinical effectiveness. However, if priorities have to be set, some method of appraisal of the relative values of different interventions is required. Increasingly, economic analyses are being used to justify policies and the use of resources, by introducing measures of cost and quality as well as effectiveness. Those economic evaluations most commonly used, and their shortcomings, are described. Priority setting cannot, however, be reduced to a purely technical exercise. Decisions on what should and should not be funded from the public purse will be influenced by the overall framework of national aims and objectives and by professional opinion and public values; they will be more firmly based and defensible if they are subject to wide public discussion and debate.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHealth PolicyHealth PrioritiesState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.