FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 332:123-125 January 12, 1995 Number 2 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Kassirer, J. P. Related Article Related Article by Fuchs, H. J. PubMed Citation

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 . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

Related Letters:

Fraud in Breast-Cancer Trials
Fisher B., Redmond C. K., Poisson R., Broder S., Bivens L. W., Macfarlane D. K., Bernier G. M., Huet P.-M., Richer G.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1994; 330:1458-1462, May 19, 1994. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Luce, B. R. (1998). Pharmacoeconomics and Managed Care: Methodologic and Policy Issues. Med Decis Making 18: S4-S11  
• Kassirer, J. P. (1995). My Years at the Journal -- So Far. NEJM 333: 654-655 [Full Text]