IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Confidence Intervals for Cost-Effectiveness Ratios: A Comparison of Four Methods

Listed author(s):
  • Daniel Polsky

    (Division of General Internal Medicine and Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, USA)

  • Henry A. Glick

    (Division of General Internal Medicine and Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, USA)

  • Richard Willke

    (Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., Kalamazoo, USA)

  • Kevin Schulman

    (Clinical Economics Research Unit, Division of General Internal Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA)

Registered author(s):

    We evaluated four methods for computing confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios developed from randomized controlled trials: the box method, the Taylor series method, the nonparametric bootstrap method and the Fieller theorem method. We performed a Monte Carlo experiment to compare these methods. We investigated the relative performance of each method and assessed whether or not it was affected by differing distributions of costs (normal and log normal) and effects (10% absolute difference in mortality resulting from mortality rates of 25% versus 15% in the two groups as well as from mortality rates of 55% versus 45%) or by differing levels of correlation between the costs and effects (correlations of −0.50, −0.25, 0.0, 0.25 and 0.50). The principal criterion used to evaluate the performance of the methods was the probability of miscoverage. Symmetrical miscoverage of the intervals was used as a secondary criterion for evaluating the four methods. Overall probabilities of miscoverage for the nonparametric bootstrap method and the Fieller theorem method were more accurate than those for the other the methods. The Taylor series method had confidence intervals that asymmetrically underestimated the upper limit of the interval. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios resulting from the nonparametric bootstrap method and the Fieller theorem method were more dependably accurate than those estimated using the Taylor series or box methods. Routine reporting of these intervals will allow individuals using cost-effectiveness ratios to make clinical and policy judgments to better identify when an intervention is a good value for its cost. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Article provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Health Economics.

    Volume (Year): 6 (1997)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 243-252

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:6:y:1997:i:3:p:243-252
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199705)6:3<243::AID-HEC269>3.0.CO;2-Z
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:6:y:1997:i:3:p:243-252. 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-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

    or (Christopher F. Baum)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.