RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
As I step down as editor-in-chief of Value in Health, I would like to take a moment to reflect on my 8 years in this role. It has been an enormously challenging but exciting period in my career. In particular, there are two experiences that have been particularly interesting and important to me. First, I have experienced firsthand the role that a professional journal plays in the evolution of methods in a discipline. An example of this evolution that occurred during my tenure as editor-in-chief is the introduction of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) as essential components of a costeffectiveness modeling analysis. Eight years ago, most costeffectiveness models submitted to Value in Health did not include such analyses despite publications such as Doubilet et al. [1], Critchfield et al. [2], Fenwick et al. [3], Briggs & Fenn [4], and Briggs et al. [5] recommending the use of these methods as an integral part of decision analysis. Although submissions including these analyses became much more common over the last 8 years, many submissions during this period did not include such analyses and this prompted intense discussions among the coeditors about whether or not a PSA and CEAC should be required for all cost-effectiveness models published in the journal. We finally decided that this should not be a requirement. This was mostly because of our reluctance to dictate methods to authors.
