Sample size and power issues in estimating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from clinical trials data
It is becoming increasingly more common for a randomized controlled trial of a new therapy to include a prospective economic evaluation. The advantage of such trial-based cost-effectiveness is that conventional principles of statistical inference can be used to quantify uncertainty in the estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Numerous articles in the recent literature have outlined and compared various approaches for determining confidence intervals for the ICER. In this paper we address the issue of power and sample size in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis. Our approach is to determine the required sample size to ensure that the resulting confidence interval is narrow enough to distinguish between two regions in the cost-effectiveness plane: one in which the new therapy is considered to be cost-effective and one in which it is not. As a result, for a given sample size, the cost-effectiveness plane is divided into two regions, separated by an ellipse centred at the origin, such that the sample size is adequate only if the truth lies on or outside the ellipse. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
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.
Volume (Year): 8 (1999)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
- Alan Diener & Bernie O'Brien & Amiram Gafni, 1998.
"Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature,"
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(4), pages 313-326.
- A Diener & B O'Brien & A Gafni, 1997. "Health Care Contingent Valuation Studies: A review and classification of the literature," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1997-07, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
- Andrew H. Briggs & David E. Wonderling & Christopher Z. Mooney, 1997. "Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: A non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(4), pages 327-340.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:8:y:1999:i:3:p:203-211. 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.