Trying to do better than average: a commentary on ‘statistical inference for cost‐effectiveness ratios’

Andrew Briggs and Paul Fenn

Health Economics, 1997, vol. 6, issue 5, 491-495

Abstract: In a recent paper, Laska, Meisner and Siegel address issues concerning hypothesis testing in cost‐effectiveness analysis. They relate the relative magnitude of two average cost‐effectiveness ratios to the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio and go on to propose a statistical procedure for testing the equality of two average ratios. In this paper, we show why the use of average cost‐effectiveness ratios is misleading and argue that the appropriate focus for cost‐effectiveness analysis is the estimation of confidence intervals around incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 1997
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199709)6:53.0.CO;2-R

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:6:y:1997:i:5:p:491-495

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().