IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v13y2004i5p405-415.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions

Author

Listed:
  • Elisabeth Fenwick

    (Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, St Joseph's Hospital, Hamilton, Canada)

  • Bernie J. O'Brien
  • Andrew Briggs

    (Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK)

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) have been widely adopted as a method to quantify and graphically represent uncertainty in economic evaluation studies of health-care technologies. However, there remain some common fallacies regarding the nature and shape of CEACs that largely result from the 'textbook' illustration of the CEAC. This 'textbook' CEAC shows a smooth curve starting at probability 0, with an asymptote to 1 for higher money values of the health outcome (λ). But this familiar 'ogive' shape which makes the 'textbook' CEAC look like a cumulative distribution function is just one special case of the CEAC. The reality is that the CEAC can take many shapes and turns because it is a graphic transformation from the cost-effectiveness plane, where the joint density of incremental costs and effects may 'straddle' quadrants with attendant discontinuities and asymptotes. In fact CEACs: (i) do not have to cut the y-axis at 0; (ii) do not have to asymptote to 1; (iii) are not always monotonically increasing in λ; and (iv) do not represent cumulative distribution functions (cdfs). Within this paper we present a 'gallery' of CEACs in order to identify the fallacies and illustrate the facts surrounding the CEAC. The aim of the paper is to serve as a reference tool to accompany the increased use of CEACs within major medical journals. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:5:p:405-415
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.903
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/hec.903
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787.
    2. Bryan R. Luce & Karl Claxton, 1999. "Redefining the analytical approach to pharmacoeconomics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 187-189.
    3. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740.
    4. Elizabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Andrew Briggs, 2000. "Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessent: the role of iterative decision analytic modelling," Working Papers 179chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Andrew H. Briggs, 1999. "A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 257-261.
    6. Daniel F. Heitjan & Alan J. Moskowitz & William Whang, 1999. "Bayesian estimation of cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 191-201.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:spr:annopr:v:251:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-015-1910-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli & Joran Lokkerbol, 2017. "A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Economic Evaluations of Pharmacological Interventions for People with Bipolar Disorder," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 271-296, March.
    3. repec:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0936-0 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Lakdawalla, Darius N. & Seabury, Seth A., 2012. "The welfare effects of medical malpractice liability," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 356-369.
    5. Nadine Berndt & Catherine Bolman & Lilian Lechner & Wendy Max & Aart Mudde & Hein Vries & Silvia Evers, 2016. "Economic evaluation of a telephone- and face-to-face-delivered counseling intervention for smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(3), pages 269-285, April.
    6. O'Neill, Donal, 2009. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Early Childhood Intervention: Evidence from a Randomised Evaluation of a Parenting Programme," IZA Discussion Papers 4518, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    7. repec:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:10:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0531-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. John Mullahy, 2017. "Individual Results May Vary: Elementary Analytics of Inequality-Probability Bounds, with Applications to Health-Outcome Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 23603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Sood Neeraj & Philipson Tomas J. & Huckfeldt Peter, 2013. "Quantifying the Value of Personalized Medicines: Evidence from COX-2 Inhibitors," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-22, April.
    10. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non-parametric methods for cost-effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333.
    11. Michal Jakubczyk, 2016. "Choosing from multiple alternatives in cost-effectiveness analysis with fuzzy willingness-to-pay/accept and uncertainty," Working Papers 2016-006, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    12. Saskia Schawo & Annemarie Kolk & Clazien Bouwmans & Lieven Annemans & Maarten Postma & Jan Buitelaar & Michel Agthoven & Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen, 2015. "Probabilistic Markov Model Estimating Cost Effectiveness of Methylphenidate Osmotic-Release Oral System Versus Immediate-Release Methylphenidate in Children and Adolescents: Which Information is Neede," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 489-509, May.
    13. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters,in: The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. repec:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0494-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Hoch, Jeffrey S. & Blume, Jeffrey D., 2008. "Measuring and illustrating statistical evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 476-495, March.
    16. Francisco Jódar-Sánchez & Amaia Malet-Larrea & José Martín & Leticia García-Mochón & M. López del Amo & Fernando Martínez-Martínez & Miguel Gastelurrutia-Garralda & Victoria García-Cárdenas & Daniel S, 2015. "Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Review with Follow-Up Service for Older Adults with Polypharmacy in Community Pharmacies in Spain: The conSIGUE Program," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 599-610, June.
    17. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    18. repec:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0650-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Andrew R. Willan & Matthew E. Kowgier, 2008. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multinational RCT with a binary measure of effectiveness and an interacting covariate," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 777-791.
    20. Salah Ghabri & Françoise F. Hamers & Jean Michel Josselin, 2016. "Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 617-624, June.
    21. Peter Makai & Willemijn Looman & Eddy Adang & René Melis & Elly Stolk & Isabelle Fabbricotti, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 437-450, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:13:y:2004:i:5:p:405-415. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.