Editing Cost-effectiveness analysis (section)

===In pharmacoeconomics===
In the context of [[pharmacoeconomics]], the cost-effectiveness of a therapeutic or preventive intervention is the ratio of the cost of the intervention to a relevant measure of its effect. Cost refers to the resource expended for the intervention, usually measured in monetary terms such as [[dollar]]s or [[pound sterling|pounds]]. The measure of effects depends on the intervention being considered. Examples include the number of people cured of a disease, the mm Hg reduction in diastolic [[blood pressure]] and the number of symptom-free days experienced by a patient. The selection of the appropriate effect measure should be based on clinical judgment in the context of the intervention being considered.

A special case of CEA is [[cost–utility analysis]], where the effects are measured in terms of years of full health lived, using a measure such as [[quality-adjusted life year]]s (QALY) or [[disability-adjusted life year]]s. Cost-effectiveness is typically expressed as an [[incremental cost-effectiveness ratio]] (ICER), the ratio of change in costs to the change in effects. A complete compilation of cost-utility analyses in the peer-reviewed medical and public health literature is available from the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry website.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health|title=The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry|url=http://healtheconomicsdev.tuftsmedicalcenter.org/cear2/search/search.aspx|access-date=2020-09-04}}</ref>

A 1995 study of the cost-effectiveness of reviewed over 500 life-saving interventions found that the median cost-effectiveness was $42,000 per life-year saved.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS |title=Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness |journal=Risk Anal. |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=369–90 |date=June 1995 |pmid=7604170 |doi= 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00330.x|bibcode=1995RiskA..15..369T |display-authors=etal}}</ref> A 2006 systematic review found that industry-funded studies often concluded with cost-effective ratios below $20,000 per QALY and low quality studies and those conducted outside the US and EU were less likely to be below this threshold. While the two conclusions of this article may indicate that industry-funded ICER measures are lower methodological quality than those published by non-industry sources, there is also a possibility that, due to the nature of retrospective or other non-public work, publication bias may exist rather than methodology biases. There may be incentive for an organization not to develop or publish an analysis that does not demonstrate the value of their product. Additionally, peer reviewed journal articles should have a strong and defendable methodology, as that is the expectation of the peer-review process.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG |title=Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review.|journal=BMJ |volume=332 |issue=7543 |pages=699–703 |date=March 2006 |pmid=16495332 |pmc=1410902 |doi=10.1136/bmj.38737.607558.80 |display-authors=etal}}</ref>