IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

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


  • Daniel Polsky
  • Henry A. Glick
  • Richard Willke
  • Kevin Schulman


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.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Polsky & Henry A. Glick & Richard Willke & Kevin Schulman, 1997. "Confidence Intervals for Cost–Effectiveness Ratios: A Comparison of Four Methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 243-252, May.
  • 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

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:;2-Z
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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: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 Content Delivery). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.