ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Marginal costs and benefits.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. 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.
- Features influencing the health and economic impact of preventing COVID-19 in immunocompromised individuals.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Identification of PIK3CA multigene mutation patterns associated with superior prognosis in stomach cancer.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Should universal hepatitis B immunisation be introduced in the UK?Archives of disease in childhood · 2006Review
- Re-interpreting the data on the cost and effectiveness of population screening for colorectal cancer in Australia.Australia and New Zealand health policy · 2005Article
- Economics and preventing hospital-acquired infection.Emerging infectious diseases · 2004Article
- Developing intermediate care provided by general practitioners with a special interest: the economic perspective.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Article
- Introduction to health economics for the medical practitioner.Postgraduate medical journal · 2003Review
- Economic approaches to doctor/nurse skill mix: problems, pitfalls, and partial solutions.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Review
- Screening for Down's syndrome: effects, safety, and cost effectiveness of first and second trimester strategies.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
- Economic Notes: opportunity cost.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1999Review
- Economic evaluation in health: a thumb nail sketch.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Article
- Methods used in economic evaluations of prenatal screening are disputed.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- When marginal costs and benefits should be used in screening.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Authors should have used marginal analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decision makers are interested in measuring the costs and benefits of various interventions, and sometimes they are presented with the average costs and benefits of alternative interventions and asked to compare these. Usually a newer intervention is being compared with an existing one, and the most appropriate comparison is not of average costs (and benefits) but of the extra--or marginal--costs (and benefits) of the new intervention. Reanalysis of the cost effectiveness ratio of biochemical screening of all women for Down's syndrome compared with age based screening shows that the marginal cost effectiveness of biochemical screening is 47,786 pounds, compared with an average cost effectiveness of 37,591 pounds. It may sometimes be difficult or costly to calculate marginal costs and benefits, but this should be done whenever possible.
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.