Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review -- Bell et al. 332 (7543): 699 -- BMJ

Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review -- Bell et al. 332 (7543): 699 -- BMJ: "Conclusion Most published analyses report favourable incremental cost effectiveness ratios. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report ratios below the three thresholds. Studies of higher methodological quality and those conducted in Europe and the US rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below $20 000/QALY.
Introduction
Cost effectiveness analysis can help inform policy makers on better ways to allocate limited resources.1-3 Some form of cost effectiveness is now required for health interventions to be covered by many insurers.1 4 5 The quality adjusted life year (QALY) is used to compare the effectiveness of a wide range of interventions. Cost effectiveness analysis produces a numerical ratio�the incremental cost effectiveness ratio�in dollars per QALY. This ratio is used to express the difference in cost effectiveness between new diagnostic tests or treatments and current ones.
Interpreting the results of cost effectiveness analysis can be problematic, making it difficult to decide whether to adopt a diagnostic test or treatment. The threshold for adoption is thought to be somewhere between $20 000 (�11 300, 16 500)/QALY and $100 000/QALY, with thresholds of $50-60 000/QALY frequently proposed.6-9 "