The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves
Abstract
Decision‐making in health care is inevitably undertaken in a context of uncertainty concerning the effectiveness and costs of health care interventions and programmes. One method that has been suggested to represent this uncertainty is the cost‐effectiveness acceptability curve. This technique, which directly addresses the decision‐making problem, has advantages over confidence interval estimation for incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios. However, despite these advantages, cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves have yet to be widely adopted within the field of economic evaluation of health care technologies. In this paper we consider the relationship between cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves and decision‐making in health care, suggest the introduction of a new concept more relevant to decision‐making, that of the cost‐effectiveness frontier, and clarify the use of these techniques when considering decisions involving multiple interventions. We hope that as a result we can encourage the greater use of these techniques. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Stinnett, A. A., & Mullahy, J. (1998) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x98018002s09 · Cited by 1,102
Costs, effects and C/E‐ratios alongside a clinical trial
Van Hout, B. A., Al, M. J., Gordon, G. S., & Rutten, F. F. H. (1994) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.4730030505 · Cited by 964
Claxton, K. (1999) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(98)00039-3 · Cited by 889
Self-citationAn economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting
Claxton, K., & Posnett, J. (1996) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199611)5:6<513::aid-hec237>3.0.co;2-9 · Cited by 395
Self-citationHandling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions.
Briggs, & Gray (1999) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta3020 · Cited by 387
Stearne, M. R., Palmer, S. L., Hammersley, M. S., Franklin, S. L., Spivey, R. S., Lévy, J., Tidy, C. R., Bell, N. J., Steemson, J., Barrow, B. A., et al. (1998) · Cited by 302
Definition, interpretation and calculation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves
L�thgren, M., & Zethraeus, N. (2000) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/1099-1050(200010)9:7<623::aid-hec539>3.0.co;2-v · Cited by 292
On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis
Johannesson, M., & Weinstein, M. C. (1993) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/0167-6296(93)90005-y · Cited by 288
A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis
Briggs, A. H. (1999) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199905)8:3<257::aid-hec427>3.0.co;2-e · Cited by 253
The Decision Rules of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Karlsson, G., & Johannesson, M. (1996) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/00019053-199609020-00003 · Cited by 205
Going beyond the single number: Using probabilistic risk assessment to improve risk management
Thompson, K. M., & Graham, J. D. (1996) · Human and Ecological Risk Assessment An International Journal · doi:10.1080/10807039609383660 · Cited by 157
Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies
Palmer, S., & Smith, P. (2000) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(00)00048-5 · Cited by 113
Inference for the Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve and Cost-Effectiveness Ratio
O’Hagan, A., Stevens, J., & Montmartin, J. (2000) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/00019053-200017040-00004 · Cited by 81
Fenwick, E., Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., & Briggs, A. H. (2000) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 41
Self-citationSculpher, M. J., Poole, L., Cleland, J. G. F., Drummond, M., Armstrong, P. W., Horowitz, J. D., Massie, B. M., Poole-Wilson, P. A., & Rydén, L. (2000) · European Journal of Heart Failure · doi:10.1016/s1388-9842(00)00122-7 · Cited by 33
Self-citationBriggs (1998) · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199812)7:8
Cited by
Manca, A., Hawkins, N., & Sculpher, M. J. (2005) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.944 · Cited by 1,024
Self-citationRamsey, S. D., Willke, R. J., Glick, H., Reed, S. D., Augustovski, F., Jonsson, B., Briggs, A., & Sullivan, S. D. (2015) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001 · Cited by 811
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy to prevent relapse in recurrent depression.
Kuyken, W., Byford, S., Taylor, R. S., Watkins, E., Holden, E., White, K., Barrett, B., Byng, R., Evans, A., Mullan, E., et al. (2008) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013786 · Cited by 770
Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons
Lu, G., & Ades, A. E. (2006) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214505000001302 · Cited by 756
Ramsey, S., Willke, R., Briggs, A., Brown, R., Buxton, M., Chawla, A., Cook, J., Glick, H., Liljas, B., Petitti, D., et al. (2005) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00045.x · Cited by 720
Metadata
- Authors
- Fenwick, E., Claxton, K., & Sculpher, M.
- Venue
- Health Economics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-07-20
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 779-787
- ISSN
- 1057-9230 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1050
- OpenAlex
- W2106203584
- Cited by
- 1,110
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 48.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
