1. Claxton, K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341–64.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. Groot Koerkamp, B, Hunink, MG, Stijnen, T, Hammitt, JK, Kuntz, KM, Weinstein, MC. Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):101–11.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals3. O’Mahony, JF, Paulden, M. Appraising the cost-effectiveness of vaccines in the UK: insights from the Department of Health Consultation on the revision of methods guidelines. Vaccine. 2019;37(21):2831–7.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Cleemput, I, Neyt, M, Van de Sande, S, Thiry, N. Belgian Guidelines for Economic Evaluations and Budget Impact Analyses. 2nd ed. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2012. KCE Report 183C. D/2012/10.273/54
Google Scholar5. Stinnett, AA, Mullahy, J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2):S68–S80.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI6. Fenwick, E, Briggs, A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in the dock: case not proven? Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):93–5.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals7. Eckermann, S, Willan, AR. Presenting evidence and summary measures to best inform societal decisions when comparing multiple strategies. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(7):563–77.
Google Scholar | Crossref8. Eckermann, S, Briggs, A, Willan, AR. Health technology assessment in the cost-disutility plane. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(2):172–81.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals9. Guideline for Economic Evaluations in Healthcare . Netherlands, Diemen: National Health Care Institute; 2016.
Google Scholar10. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada . 4th ed. Ottawa: CADTH; 2017.
Google Scholar11. Alarid-Escudero, F, Enns, EA, Kuntz, KM, Michaud, TL, Jalal, H. “Time traveling is just too dangerous” but some methods are worth revisiting: the advantages of expected loss curves over cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and frontier. Value Health. 2019;22(5): 611–18.
Google Scholar | Crossref12. Drummond, M, Sculpher, M, Claxton, K, Stoddart, G, Torrance, G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Google Scholar13. Ryen, L, Svensson, M. The willingness to pay for a quality adjusted life year: a review of the empirical literature. Health Econ. 2015;24(10):1289–301.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Karlsson, G, Johannesson, M. The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;9(2):113–20.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline15. Thokala, P, Ochalek, J, Leech, AA, Tong, T. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: the past, the present and the future. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(5):509–22.
Google Scholar | Crossref16. Bertram, MY, Lauer, JA, De Joncheere, K, Edejer, T, Hutubessy, R, Kieny, MP, et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull WHO. 2016;94(12):925–30.
Google Scholar | Medline17. Stinnett, AA, Paltiel, AD. Estimating CE ratios under second-order uncertainty: the mean ratio versus the ratio of means. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(4):483–9.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals18. Johannesson, M, Weinstein, MC. On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1993;12(4):459–67.
Google Scholar | Crossref19. Cantor, SB. Cost-effectiveness analysis, extended dominance, and ethics: a quantitative assessment. Med Decis Making. 1994;14(3):259–65.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals20. Eckermann, S. Health Economics from Theory to Practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG; 2017.
Google Scholar | Crossref21. Briggs, AH, Goeree, R, Blackhouse, G, O’Brien, BJ. Probabilistic analysis of cost-effectiveness models: choosing between treatment strategies for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(4):290–308.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI22. van Hout, BA, Al, MJ, Gordon, GS, Rutten, FF. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3(5):309–19.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline23. Felli, JC, Hazen, GB. Sensitivity analysis and the expected value of perfect information. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(1):95–109.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI24. Briggs, A, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Google Scholar25. Eckermann, S, Karnon, J, Willan, AR. The value of value of information: best informing research design and prioritization using current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(9):699–709.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI26. Black, WC. The Ce plane—a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 1990;10(3):212–14.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals27. Willan, AR. Incremental net benefit in the analysis of economic data from clinical trials, with application to the CADET-Hp Trial. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;16(6):543–9.
Google Scholar | Crossref28. Fenwick, E, Claxton, K, Sculpher, M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 2001;10(8):779–87.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline29. Bilcke, J, Antillón, M, Pieters, Z, Kuylen, E, Abboud, L, Neuzil, KM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of routine and campaign use of typhoid Vi-conjugate vaccine in Gavi-eligible countries: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(7):728–39.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline30. Griffin, SC, Claxton, KP, Palmer, SJ, Sculpher, MJ. Dangerous omissions: the consequences of ignoring decision uncertainty. Health Econ. 2011;20(2):212–24.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline31. Claxton, K. Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):781–98.
Google Scholar | Crossref32. Basu, A, Meltzer, D. Decision criterion and value of information analysis: optimal aspirin dosage for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(4):427–38.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals33. Heath, A, Manolopoulou, I, Baio, G. Efficient Monte Carlo estimation of the expected value of sample information using moment matching. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(2):163–73.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals34. Strong, M, Oakley, JE, Brennan, A, Breeze, P. Estimating the expected value of sample information using the probabilistic sensitivity analysis sample: a fast, nonparametric regression-based method. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(5):570–83.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals35. Walker, D, Fox-Rushby, J. Allowing for uncertainty in economic evaluations: qualitative sensitivity analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2001;16(4):435–43.
Google Scholar | Crossref36. Bilcke, J, Beutels, P, Brisson, M, Jit, M. Accounting for methodological, structural, and parameter uncertainty in decision-analytic models: a practical guide. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(4):675–92.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals37. den Boon, S, Jit, M, Brisson, M, Medley, G, Beutels, P, White, R, et al. Guidelines for multi-model comparisons of the impact of infectious disease interventions. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):163.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline38. Paulden, M. Why it’s time to abandon the ICER. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(8):781–4.
Google Scholar | Crossref39. O’Mahony, JF. Does cost-effectiveness analysis really need to abandon the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to embrace net benefit? Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(8):777–9.
Google Scholar40. Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, Carswell, C, Moher, D, Greenberg, D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–50.
Google Scholar | Crossref41. Guindo, LA, Wagner, M, Baltussen, R, Rindress, D, van Til, J, Kind, P, et al. From efficacy to equity: literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10(1):9.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline