The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic Overview of Cost-Utility Assessments in Oncology
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) present the value of an intervention as the ratio of its incremental cost divided by its incremental survival benefit, with survival weighted by utilities to produce quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We critically reviewed the CUA literature and its role in informing clinical oncology practice, research priorities, and policy. METHODS: The English-language literature was searched between 1975 and1997 for CUAs. Two readers abstracted from each article descriptions of the clinical situation and patients, the methods used, study perspective, the measures of effectiveness, costs included, discounting, and whether sensitivity analyses were performed. The readers then made subjective quality assessments. We also extracted utility values from the reviewed papers, along with information on how and from whom utilities were measured. RESULTS: Our search yielded 40 studies, which described 263 health states and presented 89 cost-utility ratios. Both the number and quality of studies increased over time. However, many studies are at variance with current standards. Only 20% of studies took a societal perspective, more than a third failed to discount both the costs and QALYs, and utilities were often simply estimates from the investigators or other physicians. CONCLUSION: The cost-utility literature in oncology is not large but is rapidly expanding. There remains much room for improvement in the methodological rigor with which utilities are measured. Considering quality-of-life effects by incorporating utilities into economic studies is particularly important in oncology, where many therapies obtain modest improvements in response or survival at the expense of nontrivial toxicity.
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
EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life
(1990) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 · Cited by 15,736
Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
Weinstein, M. C. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540150055031 · Cited by 2,455
Laupacis, A., Feeny, D. H., Detsky, A. S., & Tugwell, P. (1992) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 1,581
Five‐Hundred Life‐Saving Interventions and Their Cost‐Effectiveness
Tengs, T. O., Adams, M. E., Pliskin, J. S., Safran, D. G., Siegel, J. E., Weinstein, M. C., & Graham, J. D. (1995) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00330.x · Cited by 1,321
Recommendations for Reporting Cost-effectiveness Analyses
Siegel, J. E. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540160061034 · Cited by 1,147
TORRANCE, G. W., FEENY, D. H., FURLONG, W. J., BARR, R. D., ZHANG, Y., & WANG, Q. (1996) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199607000-00004 · Cited by 900
Utilities and Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Torrance, G. W., & Feeny, D. (1989) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462300008461 · Cited by 818
Slevin, M. L., Stubbs, L., Plant, H. J., Wilson, P., Gregory, W. M., Armes, P. J., & Downer, S. M. (1990) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1458 · Cited by 753
Multi-Attribute Preference Functions: Health Utilities Index
Torrance, G. W., Furlong, W., Feeny, D., & Boyle, M. (1995) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/00019053-199507060-00005 · Cited by 533
Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs Used in Oncology
Friedberg, M. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1453 · Cited by 477
Cited by
Alonso-Coello, P., Oxman, A. D., Moberg, J., Brignardello-Petersen, R., Akl, E. A., Davoli, M., Treweek, S., Mustafa, R. A., Vandvik, P. O., Meerpohl, J., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i2089 · Cited by 814
Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold
Grosse, S. D. (2008) · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · doi:10.1586/14737167.8.2.165 · Cited by 637
Niño de Guzmán Quispe, E., Martínez García, L., Orrego Villagrán, C., Heijmans, M., Sunol, R., Fraile-Navarro, D., Pérez-Bracchiglione, J., Ninov, L., Salas-Gama, K., Viteri García, A., et al. (2021) · The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research · doi:10.1007/s40271-021-00514-2 · Cited by 54
Metadata
- Authors
- Earle, C. C., Chapman, R. H., Baker, C. S., Bell, C. M., Stone, P. W., Sandberg, E. A., & Neumann, P. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2000-09-18
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 3302-3317
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1861968676
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 27.16
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Overview of Cost-Utility Assessments in Oncology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2000.18.18.3302
- The paper
- Earle, C. C., Chapman, R. H., Baker, C. S., Bell, C. M., Stone, P. W., Sandberg, E. A., & Neumann, P. J. (2000). Systematic Overview of Cost-Utility Assessments in Oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.18.3302
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.