Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32390067›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2020

Calculating and Interpreting ICERs and Net Benefit.

Mike Paulden

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 79 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing 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

79 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. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Cost-effectiveness of a Novel Hypoglycaemia Programme: The 'HARPdoc vs BGAT' RCT.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2024
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mike PauldenSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, 3-300 ECHA, 11405 87 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1C9, Canada. paulden@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0381-5980

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For several decades, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio has been routinely used by health technology assessment agencies around the world to summarise the results of economic evaluations of health interventions. Yet reporting and considering incremental cost-effectiveness ratios is unnecessary. Alternative summary measures exist, based on the concept of 'net benefit'. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and measures of net benefit share several commonalities but some important distinctions. As a result, different methods are required to calculate and interpret incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared to measures of net benefit. The aim of this practical application is to introduce readers to these methods, using a hypothetical example to illustrate key issues. First, the methods used to calculate each measure are described. Next, for each measure, consideration is made of whether and how each measure may be interpreted to perform the following tasks, each of which may be of interest to health technology assessment agencies: (1) identifying the single most cost-effective strategy; (2) ranking strategies from 'most' to 'least' cost-effective (on an ordinal scale); (3) determining the magnitude to which a strategy is more or less cost-effective than another strategy (on a cardinal scale); and (4) determining whether a strategy is more or less cost-effective following a sensitivity or scenario analysis. This practical application also introduces a novel approach for visually interpreting measures of net benefit using the cost-effectiveness plane, which addresses a number of limitations of the conventional cost-effectiveness 'efficiency frontier'. By the end of this practical application, readers should have an understanding of how to calculate and interpret each measure, as well as the relative strengths and limitations of each.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID32390067

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.