Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20617061›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2010

Comments on "Simoens, S. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2950-2966"-New Zealand in fact has no cost-effectiveness threshold.

Scott Metcalfe, Rachel Grocott

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Health economic assessment: cost-effectiveness thresholds and other decision criteria.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2010
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Scott MetcalfeNZ Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC), 40 Mercer Street, Wellington 6143, New Zealand. scott.metcalfe@pharmac.govt.nz
Rachel Grocott

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Journal recently incorrectly ascribed cost-effectiveness thresholds to New Zealand, alongside other countries. New Zealand has no such thresholds when deciding the funding of pharmaceuticals. As we fund pharmaceuticals within a fixed budget, and cost-effectiveness is only one of nine decision criteria used to inform decisions, thresholds cannot be inferred or calculated. Thresholds inadequately account for opportunity cost and affordability, and are incompatible with budgets and maximising health gains. In New Zealand, pharmaceutical investments can only be considered 'cost-effective' when prioritised against other proposals at the time, and threshold levels must inevitably vary with available funds and the other criteria.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsDrug CostsNew ZealandQuality-Adjusted Life Yearsbudget impact analysiscost-benefit analysiscost-effectiveness thresholdcost savingsdecision makinghealth economic evaluation and technology assessmentopportunity costpharmaceutical costsprioritisationquality-adjusted life years

Identifiers

PMID20617061
PMCPMC2872338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.