The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why it’s Time to Abandon the ICER
Open accessOverview
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This study’s negative ICERs are ambiguous to interpret and therefore not ideal to present (44, 45).”
From Trial-based economic evaluation of the BrainACT study: acceptance and commitment therapy for anxiety and/or depressive symptoms after acquired brain injury. (2025) · cites this paper as [45]
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
Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves
Fenwick, E. A. L., Claxton, K., & Sculpher, M. J. (2001) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.635 · Cited by 1,112
Stinnett, A. A., & Mullahy, J. (1998) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x98018002s09 · Cited by 1,103
Claxton, K. (1999) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(98)00039-3 · Cited by 891
Hoch, J. S., Briggs, A. H., & Willan, A. R. (2002) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.678 · Cited by 535
Briggs, A. H., OʼBrien, B. J., & Blackhouse, G. (2002) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140534 · Cited by 404
Using Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Address Health Equity Concerns
Cookson, R., Mirelman, A. J., Griffin, S. C., Asaria, M., Dawkins, B., Norheim, O. F., Verguet, S., & Culyer, A. J. (2017) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.027 · Cited by 350
Critical ratios and efficient allocation
Weinstein, M. C., & Zeckhauser, R. (1973) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/0047-2727(73)90002-9 · Cited by 278
O’Brien, B. J., & Briggs, A. H. (2002) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1191/0962280202sm304ra · Cited by 252
Principles of Cost-Effective Resource Allocation in Health Care organizations
Weinstein, M. C. (1990) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462300008953 · Cited by 222
Exploring Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Claxton, K. (2008) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/00019053-200826090-00008 · Cited by 210
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 4th Edition. CADTH; 2017. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bilcke, J., & Beutels, P. (2021) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x211045070 · Cited by 38
Edney, L. C., Lomas, J., Karnon, J. D., Vallejo‐Torres, L., Stadhouders, N. W., Siverskog, J., Paulden, M., Edoka, I., & Ochalek, J. (2021) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.1007/s40273-021-01087-6 · Cited by 37
Self-citationValuing health outcomes: developing better defaults based on health opportunity costs
Ochalek, J., Claxton, K., Lomas, J. R. S., & Thompson, K. M. (2020) · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · doi:10.1080/14737167.2020.1812387 · Cited by 24
Raeissadat, S. A., Rahimi, M., Rayegani, S. M., & Moradi, N. (2023) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-022-06114-x · Cited by 23
“[32], the NMB is could be considered as an alternative way to assess the economic efficiency of interventions when there are multiple treatment strategies.”
BackgroundJames, L. P., Klaassen, F., Sweeney, S., Furin, J., Franke, M., Yaesoubi, R., Chesov, D., Ciobanu, N., Codreanu, A., Crudu, V., et al. (2024) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004401 · Cited by 17
“As the interpretation of ICERs may be challenging in some circumstances [48], we also calculated the net health benefit (NHB) of each strategy (see S1 Appendix), with the cost-effective strategy identified as that with the highest NHB [43].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Paulden, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Paulden, Mike
- ORCID
- Paulden, Mike
- Venue
- PharmacoEconomics
- Published
- 2020-05-11
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 781-784
- ISSN
- 1170-7690 (ISSN-L)
- 1179-2027
- OpenAlex
- W3022637090
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 6.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- PharmacoEconomics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net benefit, economic evaluation of health technologies, health technology assessment, summary measures
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Biomedical Technology
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why it’s Time to Abandon the ICER. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s40273-020-00915-5
- The paper
- Paulden, M. (2020). Why it’s Time to Abandon the ICER. PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-020-00915-5
