ReviewPharmacoEconomics2006
Information created to evade reality (ICER): things we should not look to for answers.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 96 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals.Health economics review · 2024Review
- The cost-effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health and rights interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2021Article
- Incorporating Portfolio Uncertainty in Decision Rules for Healthcare Resource Allocation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Economic evaluations of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review.Global health action · 2021Article
- Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away?PharmacoEconomics · 2019Article
- Brief interventions to address substance use among patients presenting to emergency departments in resource poor settings: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2018Article
- Dutch guidelines for economic evaluation: 'from good to better' in theory but further away from pharmaceuticals in practice?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2017Article
- Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA): testing a proposed MCDA framework for orphan drugs.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2017Article
- Rethinking cost-effectiveness in the era of zero healthcare spending growth.International journal for equity in health · 2016Article
- Health technology assessment in the Balkans: opportunities for a balanced drug assessment system.Biotechnology, biotechnological equipment · 2014Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis: a proposal of new reporting standards in statistical analysis.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2014Article
- Average cost-effectiveness ratio with censored data.Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics · 2012Article
- Cost effectiveness of outpatient treatment for febrile neutropaenia in adult cancer patients.British journal of cancer · 2011Article
- Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab compared with pegaptanib in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2010Article
- How to assess the value of medicines?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2010Article
- Recommendations for increasing the use of HIV/AIDS resource allocation models.BMC public health · 2009Article
- Willingness to pay for cancer prevention.PharmacoEconomics · 2009Review
- Cost effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries: a review of the debates surrounding decision rules.PharmacoEconomics · 2009Review
- Methods of economic evaluation for the German statutory healthcare system.PharmacoEconomics · 2009Article
- Methodological issues in evaluating cost effectiveness of adjuvant aromatase inhibitors in early breast cancer: a need for improved modelling to aid decision making.PharmacoEconomics · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness analysis has been advocated in the health economics methods literature and adopted in a growing number of jurisdictions as an evidence base for decision makers charged with maximising health gains from available resources. This paper critically appraises the information generated by cost-effectiveness analysis, in particular the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). It is shown that this ratio is used as comparative information on what are non-comparable options and hence evades the reality of the decision-maker's problem. The theoretical basis for the ICER approach is the simplification of theoretical assumptions that have no relevance to the decision maker's context. Although alternative, well established methods can be used for addressing the decision maker's problem, faced with the increasing evidence of the theoretical and empirical failures of the cost-effectiveness approach, some proponents of the approach now propose changing the research question to suit the approach as opposed to adopting a more appropriate method for the prevailing and continuing problem. As long as decision makers are concerned with making the best use of available healthcare resources, cost-effectiveness analysis and the ICER should not be where we look for answers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.