The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cost–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons
Open accessAbstract
Cost-effectiveness analysis is used to compare the costs and outcomes of alternative policy options. Each resulting cost-effectiveness ratio represents the magnitude of additional health gained per additional unit of resources spent. Cost-effectiveness thresholds allow cost-effectiveness ratios that represent good or very good value for money to be identified. In 2001, the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics in Health suggested cost-effectiveness thresholds based on multiples of a country's per-capita gross domestic product (GDP). In some contexts, in choosing which health interventions to fund and which not to fund, these thresholds have been used as decision rules. However, experience with the use of such GDP-based thresholds in decision-making processes at country level shows them to lack country specificity and this - in addition to uncertainty in the modelled cost-effectiveness ratios - can lead to the wrong decision on how to spend health-care resources. Cost-effectiveness information should be used alongside other considerations - e.g. budget impact and feasibility considerations - in a transparent decision-making process, rather than in isolation based on a single threshold value. Although cost-effectiveness ratios are undoubtedly informative in assessing value for money, countries should be encouraged to develop a context-specific process for decision-making that is supported by legislation, has stakeholder buy-in, for example the involvement of civil society organizations and patient groups, and is transparent, consistent and fair.
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
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,451
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681
Macroeconomics and health: investing in health for economic development
Sachs, J. D. (2002) · Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública · doi:10.1590/s1020-49892002000800017 · Cited by 1,830
Global health 2035: a world converging within a generation
Jamison, D. T., Summers, L. H., Alleyne, G., Arrow, K. J., Berkley, S., Binagwaho, A., Bustreo, F., Evans, D., Feachem, R. G. A., Frenk, J., et al. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62105-4 · Cited by 1,220
[Global health 2035: a world converging within a generation].
Jamison, D. T. T., Summers, L. H., Alleyne, G. A. O., Arrow, K. J., Berkley, S., Binagwaho, A., Bustreo, F., EVANS, D. B., Feachem, R. G., Frenk, J. M., et al. (2015) · PubMed · Cited by 940
Claxton, K., Martin, S., Soares, M., Rice, N., Spackman, E., Hinde, S., Devlin, N., Smith, P. C., & Sculpher, M. (2015) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta19140 · Cited by 853
Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches
Marseille, E., Larson, B., Kazi, D. S., Kahn, J. G., & Rosen, S. (2015) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.14.138206 · Cited by 851
Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis
Garber, A. M., & Phelps, C. E. (1997) · Journal of Health Economics · doi:10.1016/s0167-6296(96)00506-1 · Cited by 766
Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector
Hutubessy, R., Chisholm, D., Edejer, T. T.-T., & WHO-CHOICE (2003) · Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation · doi:10.1186/1478-7547-1-8 · Cited by 535
Self-citationGeorge, B., Harris, A., & Mitchell, A. (2001) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/00019053-200119110-00004 · Cited by 431
Cited by
The Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health: vision beyond 2020
Burton, M. J., Ramke, J., Marques, A. P., Bourne, R. R. A., Congdon, N., Jones, I., Ah Tong, B. A. M., Arunga, S., Bachani, D., Bascaran, C., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30488-5 · Cited by 1,624
Quantifying the global burden of mental disorders and their economic value
Arias, D., Saxena, S., & Verguet, S. (2022) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101675 · Cited by 771
Epidemiology and management of gestational diabetes
Sweeting, A., Hannah, W., Backman, H., Catalano, P., Feghali, M., Herman, W. H., Hivert, M.-F., Immanuel, J., Meek, C., Oppermann, M. L., et al. (2024) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(24)00825-0 · Cited by 431
Ochalek, J., Lomas, J., & Claxton, K. (2018) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000964 · Cited by 334
Mezei, A. K., Armstrong, H. L., Pedersen, H. N., Campos, N. G., Mitchell, S. M., Sekikubo, M., Byamugisha, J. K., Kim, J. J., Bryan, S., & Ogilvie, G. S. (2017) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.30695 · Cited by 212
Metadata
- Authors
- Bertram, M., Lauer, J., De Joncheere, K., Edejer, T., Hutubessy, R., Kieny, M.-P., & Hill, S.
- Venue
- Bulletin of the World Health Organization
- Publisher
- WHO Press
- Published
- 2016-12-01
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 925-930
- ISSN
- 0042-9686 (ISSN-L)
- 1564-0604
- OpenAlex
- W2557867537
- Cited by
- 783
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 114.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: Cost–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2471/blt.15.164418
- The paper
- Bertram, M., Lauer, J., De Joncheere, K., Edejer, T., Hutubessy, R., Kieny, M.-P., & Hill, S. (2016). Cost–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.15.164418
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.
