1 Reusable instruments were assumed for the
cost analysis.
2 mportant first step in retrospective benefit-
cost analysis.
3 ing information, hallucinations, and perform
cost analysis.
4 We performed a Poisson regression and
cost analysis.
5 vides examples of how to undertake a program
cost analysis.
6 in the United States are provided to aid in
cost analysis.
7 and compared with that of a psychologist for
cost analysis.
8 ere applied to individual event data for the
cost analysis.
9 inability outcomes alongside feasibility and
cost analysis(
2).
10 les were selected for inclusion, including 1
cost analysis,
4 cost-minimization analyses, 4 cost-effe
11 How robust are the usual methods of
cost analysis against the skewed distribution of cost da
12 attention to methodology, safety evaluation,
cost analysis and clinically meaningful endpoints will b
13 Based on time-
cost analysis and comparative activity data, a cell-free
14 For this real-world
cost analysis and economic evaluation, we applied extens
15 Results of the
cost analysis and examination of sensitivity and specifi
16 Cost analysis and potential cost savings comparing PR to
17 two group-level hypotheses based on benefit-
cost analysis and social stratification, we show the fir
18 m California, the methodology for life cycle
cost analysis,
and our software are applicable for regio
19 in surgical techniques, outcome comparisons,
cost analysis,
and the continued role of extracapsular c
20 Cost analysis applied to GRIPHON demonstrated the greate
21 Perverse outcomes of overemphasizing a
cost analysis are also discussed.
22 A life cycle assessment and
cost analysis are conducted to determine GHG emissions,
23 Longer follow-up and detailed
cost analysis are needed to better understand the implic
24 A life-cycle assessment (LCA) and
cost analysis are presented comparing the environmental
25 Secondary end points included a model-based
cost analysis,
as well as pharmacokinetic and DPD enzyme
26 U+5FC were taken from ACTA, which included a
costing analysis at the Zambian site.
27 Moreover,
cost analysis based on labor, disposables, and biohazard
28 d up to 20-year follow-up data were used for
cost analysis based on mean hospital event charges and l
29 Cost analysis,
based on current commercial WES and targe
30 r their relevance to the subjects of CPR and
cost-analysis by MEDLINE keyword search.
31 Various methods of
cost analysis can provide a structured manner to assess
32 l utility of CAD and performed a preliminary
cost analysis comparing the cost per tuberculosis case d
33 In the
cost analysis,
copper offered lower costs for EC (2.02 P
34 m efficacy of Deflux is not well defined and
cost-analysis data of patients managed in a prospective
35 A retrospective
cost analysis demonstrated 59% of the cost of routine st
36 A
cost analysis demonstrated economic efficiency after 4 y
37 A modeled
cost analysis demonstrated that early genetic testing sa
38 iologic response to CLP sepsis and conduct a
cost analysis detailing the potential for reducing anima
39 Here, we aim to compare 3 methods of drug
cost analysis during 3 phases of an ASP as an example of
40 The
cost analysis estimated an annual savings of US$15 000.
41 The
cost analysis evaluated costs of PreserFlo compared with
42 d with a common reference cement plant and a
cost analysis exercise is carried out.
43 rmance evaluation is based on execution time
cost analysis for Blockchain, accuracy, and mean error v
44 Comparative
cost analysis for genotyping of HCV by line probe assay,
45 The method of unit
cost analysis for individual imaging modalities was succ
46 stoperative donor care must be included in a
cost analysis for LDLT.
47 rnments and other decision-makers in benefit-
cost analysis for over a decade, SC-CO(2) estimates draw
48 The authors performed a retrospective
cost analysis for patients undergoing revascularization
49 Cost analysis for the two systems in a laboratory that p
50 latory care team (ACT) model, but a reliable
cost analysis for these models is lacking.
51 s for preparation of a comprehensive benefit-
cost analysis for this megaproject are presented.
52 irst-ever, to the authors' knowledge, formal
cost analysis for this treatment, results of the current
53 We performed
costing analysis from the provider's perspective.
54 We conducted a cross-sectional
costing analysis,
from the household (patient) perspecti
55 Cost analysis identified that P4HB had a $7328.91 financ
56 The
cost analysis included medications plus health services
57 A
cost analysis indicates bioreactors can be a cost-effect
58 Preliminary
cost analysis indicates that optimum recovery of aluminu
59 This economic evaluation, including
cost analysis (
intervention and cost consequences) and c
60 A
cost analysis is presented, which shows that fluorinatio
61 (e.g., life cycle assessment and life cycle
cost analysis)
is critically evaluated.
62 l life-cycle assessment (LCA) and life-cycle
cost analysis (
LCCA) for codigestion of municipal sewage
63 l life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle
cost analysis (
LCCA) of processes needed to construct an
64 We introduce a
cost analysis methodology that incorporates critical fac
65 eparation, reduction in processing time, low
cost analysis,
minimal handling of hazardous materials,
66 This comprehensive
cost analysis model can be generalized to other moderate
67 does not meet current regulatory and benefit-
cost analysis needs in the United States.
68 A
cost analysis of 3 vaccines shows great variation in ins
69 Real
cost analysis of 66 patients randomly selected from all
70 We present a preliminary
cost analysis of a combination intervention using PET an
71 A
cost analysis of box training, VR training, and conventi
72 A
cost analysis of combining a tuberculin skin test (TST)
73 Cost analysis of flexible sigmoidoscopy, followed by col
74 , and should facilitate the large-scale, low-
cost analysis of HPV-16 variants in epidemiologic invest
75 Clinical evaluation and
cost analysis of mitomycin-C-augmented PreserFlo MicroSh
76 inputs, including medication costs RESULTS:
Cost analysis of office-based FA resulted in an average
77 Our results suggest that
cost analysis of reduced carbon emissions from conservat
78 Cost analysis of routine vitrectomy surgery resulted in
79 rs great promise for a rapid, simple and low-
cost analysis of S. typhi.
80 Cost analysis of TDABC identified a day-of-surgery cost
81 We present an empirical economic
cost analysis of the April 2016 switch from trivalent (t
82 nd better tolerated than SC and to perform a
cost analysis of the available esophageal pH-metry metho
83 Cost analysis of the DPC pathway, including resources re
84 Major aspects of the cost and benefit-
cost analysis of the indicated program are presented.
85 This study was a retrospective
cost analysis of the Medicare Part D Prescriber Public U
86 enotypic data were collected, and a detailed
cost analysis of the panel compared with single gene tes
87 nd reduces unnecessary excisions; however, a
cost analysis of this specialized service has not been u
88 overnment guidelines could transform benefit-
cost analysis of US climate policy.
89 We sought to evaluate the clinical use and
cost-analysis of acute rest technetium-99m (Tc-99m) tetr
90 Real
cost analysis on a representative sample of 66 patients
91 Articles that performed
cost analysis or full economic evaluation among patients
92 erformance research, we conducted a detailed
cost analysis,
projecting the starting cost and cash flo
93 comprehensive critical care medicine use and
cost analysis provides a contemporary benchmark for the
94 hieved using the new approach and a monetary
cost analysis provides a practical measure of its utilit
95 In this
cost analysis,
ranibizumab PDS with 1 refill cost more t
96 Cost analysis revealed that islet transplantation is est
97 Cost analysis revealed that TC was approximately twice a
98 Detailed
cost analysis revealed US $57,525 of additional cost for
99 tterns, hospital formulary restrictions, and
cost-analysis should be considered for each institution
100 Cost analysis showed a savings of pound 245 to pound 566
101 A modeled
cost analysis showed that application of this workflow s
102 The
cost analysis showed that HBIG contributes approximately
103 A
cost analysis showed that screening for PegIFNalpha-asso
104 Cost analysis shows this recycling technology is economi
105 Seventeen unique studies (11
cost analysis studies and 6 full economic evaluations) w
106 Cost-analysis studies of CPR programs are limited by the
107 This cohort and
cost analysis study examined the direct costs of POFP fr
108 imal algorithm is unknown, although a recent
cost-analysis study suggests that routine supplementatio
109 ur detailed number needed to treat (NNT) and
cost analysis suggest that future COVID-19 vaccination e
110 Cost analysis suggested that this urinary testing algori
111 Further, a
cost analysis suggested three years of public Montessori
112 Cost analysis suggests that implementation of reuse tech
113 An indicative
cost analysis suggests that the cost per functional pump
114 Reagent costs and a total
cost analysis that included technologist time in additio
115 In base-case
cost analysis,
the SOF/SMV treatment strategy saved $91,
116 , the disadvantages they present in terms of
cost, analysis time, and low portability limit their sui
117 m that can lead to substantial reductions in
cost, analysis time, and sample volume.
118 A
cost analysis (
time and supplies for our laboratory) sho
119 d methane emission projections and abatement
cost analysis to account for additional sources, uncerta
120 ction- and use-phase lifecycle emissions and
cost analysis to calculate the additional lifecycle gree
121 A
cost analysis to comment on the feasibility of implement
122 In crude
cost analysis,
transfer patients' costs were $9,600 high
123 Cost analysis used a weighted sample.
124 The
cost analysis used results from the clinical study to es
125 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This
cost analysis used trial data and Medicare reimbursement
126 A
cost analysis using Medicare cataract surgery volume est
127 A
cost analysis was conducted alongside the study.
128 This secondary
cost analysis was conducted throughout the trial and con
129 A comprehensive
cost analysis was conducted using 36 months of observati
130 A
cost analysis was performed based on our institution's e
131 A
cost analysis was performed for the teaching modifier fo
132 The
cost analysis was performed from a hospital perspective
133 BPAR, and infections requiring readmission.A
cost analysis was performed including all immunosuppress
134 A
cost analysis was performed to evaluate the effect on ph
135 A
cost analysis was performed to illustrate potential fina
136 Cost analysis was performed using standard cost-accounti
137 A
cost analysis was performed utilizing patient data gener
138 Cost analysis was performed.
139 t one of the institutions, an activity-based
costing analysis was performed by procedure type: screen
140 Through TDABC
cost analysis,
we determined that the surgical course of
141 In a population-based
cost analysis,
we evaluated the cost of all cancers and
142 In this benefit-
cost analysis,
we modelled productivity benefits in 102
143 A life-cycle approach and
cost analysis were then completed to analyze the environ
144 The
costing analysis will use a payer perspective and identi
145 w hours, providing a fast, sensitive and low
cost analysis with respect to the conventional procedure
146 A
cost analysis yielded a 1-yr institutional return on inv