English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

As a health economist, with a particular interest in the economic evaluation of drugs, I was pleased to read the article ‘‘Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the Portuguese setting’’ by Morais et al. in volume 33, issue 9, of the Journal. It is increasingly clear that as well as the criteria of efficacy, safety and quality that are required for market authorization, the cost-effectiveness of a drug should also be taken into consideration. This is essential to ensure the best use of resources and thus better health outcomes. Of course, this objective can only be fully achieved if the medical community has access to studies published in journals of recognized scientific quality and prestige. However, despite improvements over the last 15 years, a significant proportion of the medical community lacks the necessary tools to perform a critical analysis of a study’s results or to identify factors that could affect them. It is thus essential that at least the main parameters used in a particular study should be explained in a transparent fashion. As the lead author of the article ‘‘Economic evaluation of dabigatran for stroke prevention in patients with

Comment on “Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the Portuguese setting”