Interest in whether health interventions are value for money as well as effective has meant that the term cost effectiveness1 is commonly used (and sometimes misused) in the clinical literature. Consequently, methods for determining cost effectiveness have been refined, especially techniques for synthesising evidence and representing uncertainty in the results of such evaluations. Techniques such as multi-parameter evidence synthesis2 and value of information analysis3 are now routinely integrated into cost effectiveness studies, especially health technology appraisals (HTAs) conducted for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. But is there real value in the development and application of such techniques, or have these new methods emerged simply as a consequence of involving academics in the process of evaluation?

Colbourn and colleagues …