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

Methods for Identifying the Cost-effective Case Definition Cut-off for Sequential Monitoring Tests: an Extension of Phelps and Mushlin

Listed author(s):
  • Christopher McCabe


    (Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Canada)

  • Paul Baxter

    (Centre for Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Leeds)

  • Roberta Longo

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Peter Hall

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Jenny Hewison

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds)

  • Mehran Afshar

    (Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds)

  • Geoff Hall

    (Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Leeds)

The arrival of personalized medicine in the clinic means that treatment decisions will increasingly rely on test results. The challenge of limited health care resources means that the dissemination of these technologies will be dependent on their value in relation to their cost; i.e. their cost effectiveness. Phelps and Mushlin have described how to optimize tests to meet cost effectiveness target. However, when tests are applied repeatedly the case mix of the patients tested changes with each administration, and this impacts upon the value of each subsequent test administration. In this paper we present a modification of Phelps and Mushlin’s framework for diagnostic tests; to identify the cost effective cut-off for monitoring tests. Using the use of Ca125 test monitoring for relapse in Ovarian Cancer, we show how the repeated use of the diagnostic cut-off can lead to a substantially increased false negative rate compared to the monitoring cut-off – over 20% higher than in this example – with the associated harms for individual and population health.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: First version, 2013
Download Restriction: This is a non-final version of an article published in final form in PharmacoEconomics April 2014, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 327-334 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0134-1. The working paper can be downloaded from the web site of the Academic Unit of Health Economics. See 'Note'

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Paper provided by Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds in its series Working Papers with number 1303.

in new window

Length: 16 pages
Date of creation: 2013
Handle: RePEc:lee:wpaper:1303
Contact details of provider: Phone: Worsley Building, Level 11, Clarendon Way, LEEDS LS2 9NL
Fax: +44 (0) 113 343 3470
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

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.:

in new window

  1. McCabe, C & Claxton, K & Culyer, AJ, 2008. "The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold: What it is and What that Means," MPRA Paper 26466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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:lee:wpaper:1303. 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: (Judy Wright)

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.