Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12484802›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2003

Advantages of using the net-benefit approach for analysing uncertainty in economic evaluation studies.

Niklas Zethraeus, Magnus Johannesson, Bengt Jönsson, Mickael Löthgren, Magnus Tambour

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Long-term quality of life and cost-effectiveness of treatment of partial thickness burns: A randomized controlled trial comparing enzyme alginogel vs silver sulfadiazine (FLAM study).Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2020
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Niklas ZethraeusStockholm School of Economics, Centre for Health Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Magnus Johannesson
Bengt Jönsson
Mickael Löthgren
Magnus Tambour

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

No consensus has yet been reached on how to analyse uncertainty in economic evaluation studies where individual patient data are available for costs and health effects. This paper summarises the available results regarding the analysis of uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane and argues for using the net-benefit approach when analysing uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. The net-benefit approach avoids the interpretation and statistical problems related to the incremental cost effectiveness ratio and implies several advantages. First, traditional statistical methods can be used for confidence-interval estimation and hypothesis testing. Second, calculation of the optimal sample size and the power of the study are facilitated allowing the correlation between costs and effects to vary within and between patient groups. Third, the use of a Bayesian approach to cost-effectiveness analysis is facilitated. Fourth, a formal relation between cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and statistical inference is provided. Finally, the net-benefit approach gives the Fieller's limits of the confidence interval for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the cost-effectiveness plane. Based on these advantages the net-benefit approach should strongly be considered when analysing uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisUncertaintyBayes TheoremHumans

Identifiers

PMID12484802

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.