Suppr超能文献

英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)中的贴现与成本效益——退一步理清困惑。

Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE - stepping back to sort out a confusion.

作者信息

Claxton Karl, Sculpher Mark, Culyer Anthony, McCabe Chris, Briggs Andrew, Akehurst Ron, Buxton Martin, Brazier John

机构信息

NICE Task Group on Economics, UK.

出版信息

Health Econ. 2006 Jan;15(1):1-4. doi: 10.1002/hec.1081.

Abstract

Brouwer and colleagues [1] argue that the reasons for specifying an equal discount rate for health outcomes and costs in the recent guidance on methods of technology appraisal issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) [2] is both opaque and wrong. They argue that a lower rate should apply to health outcomes like QALYs. It is also claimed that the guidance on discounting represents a step backwards, that is both inconsistent with current theoretical insights and will prejudice the outcome of cost-effectiveness studies of preventive interventions.The reasoning behind the use of equal discount rates for costs and health outcomes is indeed not well developed in the published guidance. Nor does it reflect the debate that underpinned the guidance. We therefore welcome the opportunity to explain more completely the rationale in the minds of the principal authors of the current guidance.

摘要

布劳威尔及其同事[1]认为,英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)[2]近期发布的技术评估方法指南中,为健康结果和成本指定相同贴现率的理由既不明确又有误。他们认为,对于像质量调整生命年(QALYs)这样的健康结果,应该采用更低的贴现率。还有人声称,关于贴现的指南是一种倒退,既不符合当前的理论见解,还会对预防性干预措施的成本效益研究结果产生不利影响。已发布的指南中,对于成本和健康结果采用相同贴现率背后的推理确实阐述得不够充分。它也没有反映出作为该指南基础的讨论。因此,我们很高兴有机会更全面地解释当前指南主要作者们心中的理由。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验