ライフサイエンスコーパス: cost-effectiveness analyses

1 y collected clinical data and can be used in cost-effectiveness analyses.

2 hese competing concerns can be obtained from cost-effectiveness analyses.

3 bility-adjusted life-year metric and related cost-effectiveness analyses.

4 and DCC were higher than values used in many cost-effectiveness analyses.

5 expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses.

6 ion of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses.

7 ta by intention to treat, and also performed cost-effectiveness analyses.

8 on safety and 2 (2%; 95% CI, 0%-7%) included cost-effectiveness analyses.

9 fter completion of prophylaxis and performed cost-effectiveness analyses.

10 mber of such standardized asthma studies and cost-effectiveness analyses.

11 rols are investigated through efficiency and cost-effectiveness analyses.

12 ing was for drugs with absent or low-quality cost-effectiveness analyses.

13 Identified studies with cost-effectiveness analyses.

14 d weight and offer cost estimates for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

15 ccurate guidance for resource allocation and cost-effectiveness analyses.

16 omplication hospitalization costs for use in cost-effectiveness analyses.

17 6 cost-analyses, 3 budget-impact-analyses, 2 cost-effectiveness-analyses, 8 cost-utility-analyses, an

18 (EQ-5D-5L) is now the preferred measure for cost-effectiveness analyses across Europe, baseline scor

19 e health losses in terms of QALYs can inform cost-effectiveness analyses and can facilitate compariso

20 These data are important for cost-effectiveness analyses and long-term care.

21 We must be aware of the limitations of cost-effectiveness analyses and the need for value judgm

22 This review examines the rationale of cost-effectiveness analyses and their application specif

23 st analysis, 4 cost-minimization analyses, 4 cost-effectiveness analyses, and 2 cost-utility analyses

24 ocial sciences, public health, epidemiology, cost-effectiveness analyses, and operations research.

25 that was developed to synthesise evidence on cost-effectiveness analyses, and we adapted it for small

26 Although cost effectiveness analyses are warranted and careful co

27 Increasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine

28 Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly used to aid

29 of rapid diagnostic tests for tuberculosis, cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to inform scale-u

30 Cost-effectiveness analyses are planned to evaluate the

31 We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.

32 may improve the quality and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses by providing standardized me

33 Cost-effectiveness analyses can be clinically relevant a

34 asthma, so that costs can be calculated and cost-effectiveness analyses can be conducted across seve

35 stliest conditions in the United States, and cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to assess econom

36 ccurred, we believe that timely, independent cost-effectiveness analyses can inform clinical and poli

37 Additionally, it describes how cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can help advance equi

38 Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become increasin

39 Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of hepatitis C virus

40 ess (COI) studies, cost-of-delivery studies, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and demand forecast

41 Cost-effectiveness analyses compared incremental costs a

42 Several cost-effectiveness analyses consistently demonstrated th

43 This review describes 12 cost-effectiveness analyses done in the past year.

44 ng -- those often responsible for conducting cost-effectiveness analyses -- expressed discomfort with

45 ospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that

46 o increase transparency and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses for CVD in the United States

47 It is likely that methods for conducting a cost-effectiveness analyses for end-of-life care will ne

48 for affected patients and their families and cost-effectiveness analyses for meningococcal vaccine pr

49 The presence and quality of published cost-effectiveness analyses for the 250 drugs for which

50 There were 280 unique cost-effectiveness analyses for these drugs, representin

51 While methodologic guidelines for cost-effectiveness analyses have appeared in the medical

52 Cost-effectiveness analyses have been conducted for many

53 Cost-effectiveness analyses have been performed to deter

54 blication of this review, several additional cost-effectiveness analyses have been performed.

55 ts to measure their value using conventional cost-effectiveness analyses; however, these analyses foc

56 In separate cost-effectiveness analyses, hypothetical cohorts of tra

57 ill enable calculation of health utility for cost-effectiveness analyses in food allergy.

58 tions about the design and interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses in this setting.

59 The cost-effectiveness analyses indicated cost savings assoc

60 The cost-effectiveness analyses involved 4 comparisons: firs

61 When performing QoL or cost-effectiveness analyses, it is important to consider

62 In Bayesian cost-effectiveness analyses, likelihood that CPG was the

63 will be guided mainly by clinical condition, cost-effectiveness analyses might add another perspectiv

64 ases and their associated costs, traditional cost-effectiveness analyses might underestimate crucial

65 In cost-effectiveness analyses, multistage strategies had i

66 nglish-language research articles of cost or cost-effectiveness analyses of 6 oncology drugs in 3 new

67 values from this study can be used to inform cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma treatments.

68 Cost-effectiveness analyses of blood safety initiatives

69 term health utility scores and costs used in cost-effectiveness analyses of cardiovascular disease pr

70 The MISCAN model will be used for cost-effectiveness analyses of CRC surveillance.

71 remains low, which may be owing to a lack of cost-effectiveness analyses of data from large-scale ran

72 This burden must be considered in cost-effectiveness analyses of future personalized surve

73 sis (intervention and cost consequences) and cost-effectiveness analyses of iBASIS-VIPP compared with

74 shed between 1990 and 1997 were screened for cost-effectiveness analyses of ICD versus antiarrhythmic

75 g that this new instrument may be useful for cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions and informi

76 HCV, for use in health policy decisions and cost-effectiveness analyses of preventive and therapeuti

77 Preliminary cost-effectiveness analyses of proprotein convertase sub

78 Systematic cost-effectiveness analyses of regimens used for prevent

79 to prioritize prevention policies and inform cost-effectiveness analyses of sexually transmitted infe

80 paired with the growing number of favourable cost-effectiveness analyses of surgical interventions in

81 While cost-effectiveness analyses of the use of the new biolog

82 issues must be kept in mind when evaluating cost-effectiveness analyses of VTE prophylaxis.

83 Nevertheless, cost-effectiveness analyses of VTE treatments conducted

84 d ICU therapies were identified for focus on cost-effectiveness analyses or application of an evidenc

85 ating explicit considerations of equity into cost-effectiveness analyses or the process used to devel

86 which accounting for missing data influences cost-effectiveness analyses should be investigated.

87 f standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve qua

88 All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference ca

89 This may be inefficient use of resources and cost-effectiveness analyses should take this into accoun

90 Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that 6-mo prophylaxis

91 Cost-effectiveness analyses that measured health effects

92 nts themselves can affect the results of the cost-effectiveness analyses that often underpin assessme

93 and the need for value judgments when using cost-effectiveness analyses to inform healthcare decisio

94 h actors use economic evaluations, including cost-effectiveness analyses, to estimate the effect of d

95 We conducted comparative cost-effectiveness analyses using 3 independent simulati

96 ed for 12-month follow-up and the absence of cost-effectiveness analyses using the primary outcomes.

97 The cost-effectiveness analyses were done from a health-care

98 ot significant (P = .10); therefore, further cost-effectiveness analyses were not done.

99 All countries except Germany included formal cost-effectiveness analyses within HTA reports.