EspinozaMAMancaAClaxtonKSculpherMJ. The value of heterogeneity for cost-effectiveness subgroup analysis: conceptual framework and application. Med Dec Making. 2014;34(8):951–964.
2.
PhelpsCE. Good technologies gone bad: how and why the cost-effectiveness of a medical intervention changes for different populations. Med Decis Making. 1997;17(1):107–17.
3.
GarberAMPhelpsCE. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1997;16(1):1–31.
4.
PhelpsCEO’SullivanAKLadapoJAWeinsteinMCLeahyKDouglasPS. Cost effectiveness of a gene expression score and myocardial perfusion imaging for diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2014;167(5):697–706.e2.
5.
DetskyAS. Are clinical trials a cost-effective investment?JAMA. 1989;262(13):1795–800.
6.
DetskyAS. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve the efficiency of allocating funds to clinical trials. Stat Med. 1990;9(1–2):173–84.
7.
ConliskJWattsH. A model for optimizing experimental designs for estimating response surfaces. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association, 1969.
8.
KeeleyMCRobinsPK. Experimental design, the Conlisk-Watts assignment model, and the proper estimation of behavioral response. J Hum Res. 1980;15(4):480–98.
9.
MorrisC. A finite selection model for experimental design of the health insurance study. J Econometrics. 1979;11(1):43–61.
10.
BrookesSTWhitleyEPetersTJMulheranPAEggerMDavey SmithG. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(33):i-iv,1–56.
11.
KreifNGrieveRRadiceRSadiqueZRamsahaiRSekhonJS. Methods for estimating subgroup effects in cost-effectiveness analyses that use observational data. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(6):750–63.
12.
LauerMSD’AgostinoRBSr. The randomized registry trial–the next disruptive technology in clinical research?N Engl J Med. 2013;369(17):1579–81.
