Letters

Authors' reply

BMJ 1996; 313 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7065.1144 (Published 02 November 1996) Cite this as: BMJ 1996;313:1144
  1. P D P Pharoah,
  2. W Hollingworth
  1. Senior registrar in public health Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Commission, Fulbourn Hospital, Cambridge CB1 5EF
  2. Health economist Health Services Research Group, Department of Community Medicine, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 2SR

    EDITOR,—We agree with J Shepherd that quality of life is a relevant outcome, but we could not model this using the available data. He also points out that we did not consider the costs of some non-fatal outcomes in our model, a criticism repeated by J J V McMurray and C E Morrison. This would have little impact on our conclusions. Since the publication of our analysis, Jonsson et al have published a health economic analysis of the data from the Scandinavian study.1 They found that only 10% of the cost savings through reduced admissions was due to admissions for conditions not included in our model. Our estimated number of revascularisation procedures prevented was relative to life …

    View Full Text

    Sign in

    Log in through your institution

    Subscribe