Individualized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2011

Individualized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): John P. A. Ioannidis, Alan M. Garber

Primary Institution: Stanford University School of Medicine

Hypothesis

How can incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) be modified for individual decision-making?

Conclusion

Individualized cost-effectiveness analyses can provide more relevant information for clinicians and patients than traditional ICERs.

Supporting Evidence

  • ICERs are useful for population-level decisions but have limitations for individual choices.
  • Different individuals may prioritize outcomes differently, affecting cost-effectiveness.
  • Providing additional metrics can enhance the usefulness of cost-effectiveness analyses.

Takeaway

This study talks about how to make cost-effectiveness analysis more personal, so that doctors and patients can make better choices based on their own needs.

Methodology

The authors discuss the limitations of traditional ICERs and propose ways to present individualized cost-effectiveness information.

Potential Biases

Potential biases may arise from conflicts of interest or unrealistic modeling assumptions.

Limitations

The study acknowledges that individualized analyses may not always be necessary or appropriate and can be subject to errors.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pmed.1001058

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication