Measuring outcomes in economic evaluations

BMJ 1999;319:705- ( 11 September )

Letters

Measuring outcomes in economic evaluations

This economics note is misleading

Author's reply

This economics note is misleading

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR $---$ The series of occasional notes on economics has undoubtedly helped clinicians to understand the key concepts and jargonused by economists. The note discussing the use of outcome measuresin economic evaluation is, however, misleading.¹

Firstly, condition specific outcome measures and generic quality of life scales should not, in general, be used in cost effectivenessanalysis.² The primary reason for this is that such scalesdo not have the requisite interval properties. The scores producedby the short form-36 questionnaire (SF-36), for example, are littlemore than transformed ordinalrankings.

Even if interval properties can be shown, the use of generic quality of life scales in cost effectiveness analysis is severelyrestricted by their production of a set of scores reflecting differentdomains of health. For example, if the SF-36 is used in an evaluation,it can produce conflicting cost effectiveness ratios with respectto its various dimension . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Technorati What's this?

Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences: Jennifer Klaber Moffett, David Torgerson, Sally Bell-Syer, David Jackson, Hugh Llewlyn-Phillips, Amanda Farrin, and Julie Barber
BMJ 1999 319: 279-283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]