ReviewPharmacoEconomics1998
The (near) equivalence of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses. Fact or fallacy?
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economics of public health programs for underserved populations: a review of economic analysis of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2019Pooled it
- Economic Evaluation for Health Investments En Route to Universal Health Coverage: Cost-Benefit Analysis or Cost-Effectiveness Analysis?Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2019Review
- Welfarism versus extra-welfarism: can the choice of economic evaluation approach impact on the adoption decisions recommended by economic evaluation studies?PharmacoEconomics · 2015Review
- The potential to forgo social welfare gains through overrelianceon cost effectiveness/cost utility analyses in the evidence base for public health.Journal of environmental and public health · 2009Review
- Health economic evaluation.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2002Article
- Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare. Matching the art to the science.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been much recent debate in the health economics literature as to the (near) equivalence of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that whether such a (near) equivalence exists depends on whether one defines economic evaluations as 'CBA' or 'CEA' on the basis of either what is measured or what question the analyst is seeking to answer. The former basis of definition is popular within the 'decision science' approach to economic evaluation, but does not seem to have any theoretical support. If the latter, more theoretically correct, basis is accepted, there is no longer a case for the (near) equivalence of CBA and CEA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10178663What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.