Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVE: This article, the third in a 3-part series, describes recommendations for the reporting of cost-effective analyses (CEAs) intended to improve the quality and accessibility of CEA reports. PARTICIPANTS: The Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a nonfederal panel with expertise in CEA, clinical medicine, ethics, and health outcomes measurement, convened by the US Public Health Service. EVIDENCE: The panel reviewed the theoretical foundations of CEA, current practices, alternative methods, published critiques of CEAs, and criticisms of general CEA methods and reporting practices. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel developed recommendations through 2 1/2 years of discussions. Comments on preliminary drafts were solicited from federal government methodologists, health agency officials, and academic methodologists. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are proposed to enhance the transparency of study methods, assist analysts in providing complete information, and facilitate the presentation of comparable cost-effectiveness results across studies. Adherence to reporting conventions and attention to providing information required to understand and interpret study results will improve the relevance and accessibility of CEAs.
J E Siegel (1996) studied this question.