Abstract:THIS ISSUE OF THE JOURNAL INCLUDES 2 COSTeffectiveness analyses that compare cervical screening strategies. To many readers, these types of studies are both confusing and complex. In addition, because the results are based on mathematically modeled outcomes rather than “real” outcome data, some may not really trust the results. However, THE JOURNAL publishes these types of studies when they are of high quality according to the standards of the discipline and when they concern important health care questions that are difficult to address using other methods. In the case of cervical cancer screening, it is unlikely that clinical trials will be performed that could adequately compare all the possible variations of screening and treatment and follow-up cohorts of patients over their lifetimes to assess mortality and quality-of-life outcomes. If a cost-effectiveness analysis is performed correctly, adequately tested, and presented well, many useful insights can be gained regarding the benefits and trade-offs between different interventions. Whether a particular intervention is “costeffective,” by whatever standard, may be a less important result than these insights, given that there is no official body in the United States that approves particular interventions for use based on cost-effectiveness analysis. One helpful suggestion for clinicians evaluating these studies is to loosen focus on the specific numbers presented in the studies and concentrate attention on the graphic representation of the results, shown generically in the FIGURE, specifically in both studies, and in many other published cost-effectiveness analyses in THE JOURNAL. Gains in lifeyears are plotted on the y axis, and total costs are plotted on the x axis. Each possible intervention strategy is represented by a point. Assuming that the analysis uses uniform and consistent methods and assumptions to calculate the gain in life-years and total costs of each strategy, such as those recommended by Gold et al, the graph can provide many useful insights. At the simplest level of analysis, the higher the point, the more effective the intervention, the more to the right, the more expensive. From the perspective of the prudent spender trying to purchase the most effective health care for a given amount of money, the strategies that form the solid line connecting the points lying left and upward are the economically rational subset of choices (points C, G, H, and I in the Figure). Points lying beneath the line (points D, E, and F) represent strategies that are not as effective for any given amount of money as a point lying on the line—they are dominated strategies. The slope between any 2 points represents the incremental costeffectiveness ratio (actually the inverse). The important perspective is that as the line gets flatter, the incremental costeffectiveness ratio gets higher, representing diminishing returns of effectiveness per expenditure as the more effective strategies are used. This gives literal meaning to the term flat-of-the-curve medicine. The analysis itself cannot answer the question of which strategy is economically preferred, only which strategy is the most effective, in terms of life-years saved, for a given level of desired expenditure. Authors commonly discuss their findings in terms of comparisons to cost-effectiveness of other established interventions and conclude that a certain strategy is economically reasonable. This is often problematic due to differences in perspective, methods, and assumptions between studies. A critical examination of actual medical practice to observe where it appears to be limited or affected based on cost-effectiveness would probably reveal wildly inconsistent cost-effectiveness thresholds. Thus without an official role in setting practice guidelines, costeffectiveness analysis in the United States can only provide a gentle appeal to the professional responsibility to practice fiscally efficient medicine. The set of economically rational choices is an important result from a cost-effectiveness analysis, but it can be quite useful to notice other relationships between strategies. For instance, in the Figure the dominated strategies D and E lie well below the line. Barring great uncertainty and sensitivity in the assumptions that led to D and E having this position, the strategies represented by these points are unlikely to be good choices. Strategy F also is a dominated strategy, but it lies close to strategy G. Strategy H has a shallower slope between it and strategy G, indicating a higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, but it too lies close to G. Based on being close to nondominated strategy G, both

Testing for a difference in means of a single feature after clustering

Selective inference for k-means clustering

Visualizing cost-effectiveness analysis.

Post-clustering difference testing: Valid inference and practical considerations with applications to ecological and biological data

Testing for Unobserved Heterogeneity via k-means Clustering

Valid Post-clustering Differential Analysis for Single-Cell RNA-Seq

Simulation-Based Hypothesis Testing of High Dimensional Means Under Covariance Heterogeneity

Testing for a Change in Mean After Changepoint Detection

False Discovery Rate Control via Data Splitting for Testing-after-Clustering

Inference on differences between classes using cluster-specific contrasts of mixed effects

Mistaken identities lead to missed opportunities: Testing for mean differences in partially matched data

Significance analysis for clustering with single-cell RNA-sequencing data

Power-Enhanced Two-Sample Mean Tests for High-Dimensional Compositional Data with Application to Microbiome Data Analysis

[Protein C--possible usefulness as a therapeutic weapon].

Feature Screening for Clustering Analysis

Extension of the Dip-test Repertoire -- Efficient and Differentiable p-value Calculation for Clustering

Towards a theory for testing statistical hypothesis: Multivariate mean with nuisance covariance matrix

On testing the equality of high dimensional mean vectors with unequal covariance matrices

On Testing the Mean Equivalence of Treatments from Correlated Normal Populations

Two-Sample Test for Sparse High Dimensional Multinomial Distributions

Exact p-values for pairwise comparison of Friedman rank sums, with application to comparing classifiers