ArticlePharmacoEconomics2019
Determining Value in Health Technology Assessment: Stay the Course or Tack Away?
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of cost-effectiveness threshold using a double-bounded dichotomous choice model.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Scoping Review of Productivity-Adjusted Life Years (PALYs): Methods, Applications and Policy Implications.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Use of surrogate endpoints in health technology assessment and reimbursement of treatments for the management of chronic kidney disease.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
- Impact of influenza-like illnesses on health state utility value among Japanese children and adults.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- The Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness Between Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy and Provocative Discography in the Identification of Chronic Low Back Pain Surgery Candidates.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- A Review on the Usability, Flexibility, Affinity, and Affordability of Virtual Technology for Rehabilitation Training of Upper Limb Amputees.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Cancer treatments touch a wide range of values that count for patients and other stakeholders: What are the implications for decision-making?Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Reconstructing the value puzzle in health technology assessment: a pragmatic review to determine which modelling methods can account for additional value elements.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
- Malthusian Trajectory for Heart Failure and Novel Translational Ambulatory Technologies.Current cardiology reviews · 2023Review
- Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy.Applied health economics and health policy · 2022Review
- A Structured Pathway Toward Disruption: A Novel HealthTec Innovation Design Curriculum With Entrepreneurship in Mind.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Future of Data Analytics in the Era of the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Article
- Creeping Through the Backdoor: Disruption in Medicine and Health.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first.Journal of market access & health policy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The economic evaluation of new health technologies to assess whether the value of the expected health benefits warrants the proposed additional costs has become an essential step in making novel interventions available to patients. This assessment of value is problematic because there exists no natural means to measure it. One approach is to assume that society wishes to maximize aggregate health, measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Commonly, a single 'cost-effectiveness' threshold is used to gauge whether the intervention is sufficiently efficient in doing so. This approach has come under fire for failing to account for societal values that favor treating more severe illness and ensuring equal access to resources, regardless of pre-existing conditions or capacity to benefit. Alternatives involving expansion of the measure of benefit or adjusting the threshold have been proposed and some have advocated tacking away from the cost per QALY entirely to implement therapeutic area-specific efficiency frontiers, multicriteria decision analysis or other approaches that keep the dimensions of benefit distinct and value them separately. In this paper, each of these alternative courses is considered, based on the experiences of the authors, with a view to clarifying their implications.
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.