Abstract
To the Editor: The Journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses (Sept. 8 issue)1 does more to harm the field of cost-effectiveness research than it will do to improve its validity or quality. The new policy is based on several erroneous assumptions. The first is that there is more discretion on the part of investigators and greater opportunity for bias in economic and cost-effectiveness analyses than in clinical research. In fact, there is plenty of discretion in both. Discretionary decisions about which outcome measures to use in clinical research, for example, can easily determine whether one treatment is found to be…
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 123-125 |
Number of pages | 3 |
Journal | New England Journal of Medicine |
Volume | 332 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Jan 12 1995 |
Externally published | Yes |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Medicine