IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness plane


  • Andrew Briggs
  • Paul Fenn


Although cost‐effectiveness analysis is not new, it is only recently that economic analysis has been conducted alongside clinical trials. Whereas in the past economic analysts most often used sensitivity analysis to examine the implications of uncertainty for their results, the existence of patient‐level data on costs and effects opens up the possibility of statistical analysis of uncertainty. Unfortunately, ratio statistics can cause problems for standard statistical methods of confidence interval estimation. The recent health economics literature contains a number of suggestions for estimating confidence limits for ratios. In this paper, we begin by reviewing the different methods of confidence interval estimation with a view to providing guidance concerning the most appropriate method. We go on to argue that the focus on confidence interval estimation for cost‐effectiveness ratios in the recent literature has been concerned more with problems of estimation than with problems of decision‐making. We argue that decision‐makers are most likely to be interested in one‐sided tests of hypothesis and that confidence surfaces are better suited to such tests than confidence intervals. This approach is consistent with decision‐making on the cost‐effectiveness plane and with the cost‐effectiveness acceptability curve approach to presenting uncertainty due to sampling variation in stochastic cost‐effectiveness analyses. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:7:y:1998:i:8:p:723-740
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199812)7:8<723::AID-HEC392>3.0.CO;2-O

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:;2-O
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:<723::AID-HEC392>3.0.CO;2-O?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Aaron A. Stinnett, 1996. "Adjusting for bias in C/E ratio estimates," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(5), pages 470-472, September.
    2. Niklas Zethraeus, 1998. "Willingness to pay for hormone replacement therapy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 31-38, February.
    3. Ben A. Van Hout & Maiwenn J. Al & Gilad S. Gordon & Frans F. H. Rutten, 1994. "Costs, effects and C/E‐ratios alongside a clinical trial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(5), pages 309-319, September.
    4. Poole, C., 1987. "Beyond the confidence interval," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 77(2), pages 195-199.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Monica Merito & Patrizio Pezzotti, 2006. "Comparing costs and effectiveness of different starting points for highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-positive patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(1), pages 30-36, March.
    2. Pedram Sendi & Huldrych F Günthard & Mathew Simcock & Bruno Ledergerber & Jörg Schüpbach & Manuel Battegay & for the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, 2007. "Cost-Effectiveness of Genotypic Antiretroviral Resistance Testing in HIV-Infected Patients with Treatment Failure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(1), pages 1-8, January.
    3. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Ryen, Linda & Svensson, Mikael, 2014. "The Willingness to Pay for a QALY: a Review of the Empirical Literature," Karlstad University Working Papers in Economics 12, Karlstad University, Department of Economics.
    5. Joseph T. King Jr. & Joel Tsevat & Judith R. Lave & Mark S. Roberts, 2005. "Willingness to Pay for a Quality-Adjusted Life Year: Implications for Societal Health Care Resource Allocation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(6), pages 667-677, November.
    6. Stirling Bryan & David Parry, 2002. "Structural reliability of conjoint measurement in health care: an empirical investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(5), pages 561-567.
    7. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    8. Najme Moradi & Arash Rashidian & Shirin Nosratnejad & Alireza Olyaeemanesh & Marzieh Zanganeh & Leila Zarei, 2019. "The Worth of a Quality-Adjusted Life-Year in Patients with Diabetes: An Investigation Study using a Willingness-to-Pay Method," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 311-319, September.
    9. Hengjin Dong & Bocar Kouyate & John Cairns & Frederick Mugisha & Rainer Sauerborn, 2003. "Willingness‐to‐pay for community‐based insurance in Burkina Faso," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 849-862, October.
    10. Mark Sculpher & David Torgerson & Ron Goeree & Bernie O'Brien, 1999. "A critical structured review of economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis," Working Papers 169chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Egil Kjerstad & Hanne Kristin Tuntland, 2016. "Reablement in community-dwelling older adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Laura Bojke & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher & Stephen Palmer, 2008. "Identifying Research Priorities: The Value of Information Associated with Repeat Screening for Age-Related Macular Degeneration," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 33-43, January.
    14. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Linda Ryen & Mikael Svensson, 2015. "The Willingness to Pay for a Quality Adjusted Life Year: A Review of the Empirical Literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(10), pages 1289-1301, October.
    17. Johannesson, M. & Jonsson, B. & Jonsson, L. & Kobelt, G. & Zethraeus, N., 2009. "Why Should Economic Evaluations of Medical Innovations Have a Societal Perspective?," Briefings 000228, Office of Health Economics.
    18. Yingyan Ma & Xiaohua Ying & Haidong Zou & Xiaocheng Xu & Haiyun Liu & Lin Bai & Xun Xu & Xi Zhang, 2014. "Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Surgery in Elderly People over 70 Years Old: Visual Acuity, Quality of Life, and Cost-Utility Values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-8, October.
    19. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Khachapon Nimdet & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Kittaya Vichansavakul & Surachat Ngorsuraches, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Studies Eliciting Willingness-to-Pay per Quality-Adjusted Life Year: Does It Justify CE Threshold?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.

    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:7:y:1998:i:8:p:723-740. 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: . 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.