• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of cmajCMAJ Information for AuthorsCMAJ Home Page
CMAJ. Feb 15, 1992; 146(4): 473–481.
PMCID: PMC1488412

How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations.

Abstract

Because economic evaluations of health care services are being published with increasing frequency it is important to (a) evaluate them rigorously and (b) compare the net benefit of the application of one technology with that of others. Four "levels of evidence" that rate economic evaluations on the basis of their methodologic rigour are proposed. They are based on the quality of the methods used to estimate clinical effectiveness, quality of life and costs. With the use of the magnitude of the incremental net benefit of a technology, therapies can also be classified into five "grades of recommendation." A grade A technology is both more effective and cheaper than the existing one, whereas a grade E technology is less or equally effective and more costly. Those of grades B through D are more effective and more costly. A grade B technology costs less than $20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), a grade C one $20,000 to $100,000/QALY and a grade D one more than $100,000/QALY. Many issues other than cost effectiveness, such as ethical and political considerations, affect the implementation of a new technology. However, it is hoped that these guidelines will provide a framework with which to interpret economic evaluations and to identify additional information that will be useful in making sound decisions on the adoption and utilization of health care services.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (2.8M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Stein LI, Test MA. Alternative to mental hospital treatment. I. Conceptual model, treatment program, and clinical evaluation. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1980 Apr;37(4):392–397. [PubMed]
  • Boyle MH, Torrance GW, Sinclair JC, Horwood SP. Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care of very-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med. 1983 Jun 2;308(22):1330–1337. [PubMed]
  • Stock SR, Gafni A, Bloch RF. Universal precautions to prevent HIV transmission to health care workers: an economic analysis. CMAJ. 1990 May 1;142(9):937–946. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Stason WB, Weinstein MC. Public-health rounds at the Harvard School of Public Health. Allocation of resources to manage hypertension. N Engl J Med. 1977 Mar 31;296(13):732–739. [PubMed]
  • Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent or treat coronary heart disease. Annu Rev Public Health. 1985;6:41–63. [PubMed]
  • Goel V, Deber RB, Detsky AS. Nonionic contrast media: economic analysis and health policy development. CMAJ. 1989 Feb 15;140(4):389–395. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Fineberg HV, Scadden D, Goldman L. Care of patients with a low probability of acute myocardial infarction. Cost effectiveness of alternatives to coronary-care-unit admission. N Engl J Med. 1984 May 17;310(20):1301–1307. [PubMed]
  • Welch HG, Larson EB. Cost effectiveness of bone marrow transplantation in acute nonlymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 1989 Sep 21;321(12):807–812. [PubMed]
  • Linton AL, Naylor CD. Organized medicine and the assessment of technology. Lessons from Ontario. N Engl J Med. 1990 Nov 22;323(21):1463–1467. [PubMed]
  • Naylor CD, Baigrie RS, Goldman BS, Basinski A. Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation procedures. Revascularisation Panel and Consensus Methods Group. Lancet. 1990 May 5;335(8697):1070–1073. [PubMed]
  • Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5(4):559–575. [PubMed]
  • Boyle MH, Torrance GW. Developing multiattribute health indexes. Med Care. 1984 Nov;22(11):1045–1057. [PubMed]
  • Gafni A, Zylak CJ. Ionic versus nonionic contrast media: a burden or a bargain? CMAJ. 1990 Sep 15;143(6):475–478. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • O'Connor AM, Boyd NF, Warde P, Stolbach L, Till JE. Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(8):811–818. [PubMed]
  • Loomes G, McKenzie L. The use of QALYs in health care decision making. Soc Sci Med. 1989;28(4):299–308. [PubMed]
  • Mehrez A, Gafni A. Quality-adjusted life years, utility theory, and healthy-years equivalents. Med Decis Making. 1989 Apr-Jun;9(2):142–149. [PubMed]
  • Appel LJ, Steinberg EP, Powe NR, Anderson GF, Dwyer SA, Faden RR. Risk reduction from low osmolality contrast media. What do patients think it is worth? Med Care. 1990 Apr;28(4):324–337. [PubMed]
  • Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, Quint LE, Paushter DM, Epstein JI, Hamper U, Walsh PC, McNeil BJ. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med. 1990 Sep 6;323(10):621–626. [PubMed]
  • Teasdale GM, Hadley DM, Lawrence A, Bone I, Burton H, Grant R, Condon B, Macpherson P, Rowan J. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in suspected lesions in the posterior cranial fossa. BMJ. 1989 Aug 5;299(6695):349–355. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Detsky AS, Naglie IG. A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1990 Jul 15;113(2):147–154. [PubMed]
  • Avorn J. Benefit and cost analysis in geriatric care. Turning age discrimination into health policy. N Engl J Med. 1984 May 17;310(20):1294–1301. [PubMed]
  • Turnbull JM, Buck C. The value of preoperative screening investigations in otherwise healthy individuals. Arch Intern Med. 1987 Jun;147(6):1101–1105. [PubMed]
  • Schieber GJ, Poullier JP. International health spending and utilization trends. Health Aff (Millwood) 1988 Fall;7(4):105–112. [PubMed]
  • Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987 Feb 19;316(8):450–455. [PubMed]
  • Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ. 1988 Apr 15;138(8):697–703. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27–36. [PubMed]
  • Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986 Mar;5(1):1–30. [PubMed]
  • Guyatt GH, Veldhuyzen Van Zanten SJ, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. CMAJ. 1989 Jun 15;140(12):1441–1448. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles