Publication status
A preprint shares findings before peer review. Submission or review does not mean acceptance.
OBSERVATORY EVIDENCE
Global Health Economics and Decision Science Observatory
Explore approved economic evidence and decision-science projects, alongside separately attributed work by associated members.
Authorship and professional affiliations do not imply Observatory ownership or institutional endorsement.
Initiative intelligence
People and projects, clearly attributed
This view connects approved ongoing work, public outputs, and current Network profiles for the selected programme. A contributor affiliation is not presented as an institutional partnership.
Network intelligence
Associated Network profiles
Current approved profiles explicitly connected to this programme. Professional affiliation does not imply an institutional partnership.
Checking the governed Network registry…
Open the filtered Network directory →Relationship to microscopIA
We distinguish governed projects, collaborations and independent scholarship by Network members.
Context for findings
Read the design, population, comparison and limitations alongside the numbers. Consult the full source.
Canonical scientific records
Governed and collaborative projects
Explore disclosed studies and their specific scientific relationship with microscopIA. Unverified outcomes are withheld.
A selection of our work. Some projects in progress or peer review are not disclosed under confidentiality agreements with their investigators.
How to read the numbers
Clinical outcomes
A percentage describes a proportion within the stated group. A risk ratio compares two risks: 1 means equal risks; 2 means twice the risk in the stated comparison, not twice the number of patients. Association alone does not establish causation.
Number needed to treat
The estimated number of people treated for one additional benefit over a specified period and comparator. It depends on baseline risk and uncertainty.
Read the BMJ methods article ↗Health economics
A quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) combines length and quality of life. Net monetary benefit (NMB) values health gains at the study’s stated threshold, then subtracts costs. A cost-effectiveness probability summarizes model uncertainty; it is not the probability that a patient improves.
Read about cost-effectiveness uncertainty ↗Comparisons and precision
Read the group order, units, study design and follow-up alongside each estimate. Counts remain whole numbers; monetary and percentage estimates use two decimal places where supported. See the source for confidence intervals and limitations.
microscopIA GovernedmicroscopIA CollaborationIndependent Network Record1 project
Health economics and decision science
Empirical instability of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in probabilistic economic evaluation
Manuscript preparation
Study aim
This methodological study evaluates the empirical stability of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to net monetary benefit under probabilistic uncertainty, examining which metric communicates decision uncertainty more reliably.
- Study design
- Probabilistic simulation study
- Geography
- Methodological
- Initiative
- Global Health Economics and Decision Science Observatory
- Verification source
- microscopIA project register
Selected study metrics
Capabilities involvedHealth EconomicsData Science & Statistics
Network intelligence
Scholarship by Observatory members
Associated members’ work is attributed to its authors and organisations. Records shown above as projects do not repeat here.
Checking member profiles and scholarshipSource and relationship verification are shown on each record.
0 verified outputs
Open a record to explore its authors, source and relationship to microscopIA. Independent member scholarship is shown separately from work conducted with microscopIA.
Independent scholarship belongs to explicitly associated members in the public registry; it is not an Observatory output. Records already shown as projects appear once. If the roster is unavailable, member publications are withheld until their association can be checked.
Checking member profiles and scholarship
Turn work into evidence
Bring the next clinical question or research-ready dataset.
Strong collaboration begins with a worthwhile question, governed data, and a clear decision audience.