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

1 lars, and cost-effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

2 lars, and cost effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

3 Cost and QALYs were used to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

4 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

5 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

6 HV centers was determined by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

7 ted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

8 , costs, heart failure hospitalizations, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

9 s), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

10 s (QALYs) and lifetime costs (2010 USD), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

11 ts; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

12 ermined by calculating CLABSIs prevented and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

13 ared with screening at ages 10 and 20 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $106 841/quality-ad

14 less effective than ET with an echinocandin (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $111,084 per addit

15 ued to increase survival but at higher cost (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $197,906/quality-

16 tive compared with open repair at diagnosis (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $27,700/QALY).

17 ted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (3% annual discount

18 cost of $31,156 (95% CI, -$158 to $92,179) (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $38,648 per quali

19 py alone in all groups considered (base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $39,800).

20 nal $500/person, and was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $420 000/quality-a

21 ost of $5,242 (95% CI, -$19,035 to $41,019) (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $44,615 per extra

22 ly cost-effective in terms of cost per QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $70831-$136332).

23 ly cost-effective in terms of cost per QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $92446).

24 The main outcomes were lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and annual budget i

25 Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary be

26 literature and Medicare claims to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and examined the n

27 Main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and numbers needed

28 cluded quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health ben

29 length, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the willingnes

30 The main outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as measured by cost

31 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the U

32 atment, high cost of HCV recurrence) was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with HCV

33 We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on cumulative

34 Strategies with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per

35 was found to be highly cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between about 2,00

36 a PfPR2-10 of 10-65%, we estimated a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with curre

37 Using data from PROTECT AF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with warf

38 ned following HCV treatment, and we computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per QALY gai

39 tiveness decision analysis model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-

40 The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (discounted US$ per

41 treated, and cured; cirrhosis cases avoided; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios; DOC costs (2016 U

42 Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the

43 ted using propensity score matching with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost p

44 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as doll

45 The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the G-CSF 1 to

46 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 1 week of AmB a

47 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablati

48 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CTA compared wi

49 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for fidaxomicin bas

50 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NHAS compared w

51 djusted life years (QALYs) of 0.08, yield an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCDT of $222 04

52 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCI compared wi

53 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib was

54 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the CVR-based s

55 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the strategy of

56 5- and 20-year clinical outcomes, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for (1) Current Pa

57 ts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for 60 Framingham-

58 ortive care in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib o

59 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for CT alone and A

60 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for PLA were INT$3

61 reserve treatment only for F3 patients; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for providing surg

62 f life adjustments for patients with PA, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for screening pati

63 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for surgery in all

64 d lifetime costs were then used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the competing

65 We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a health syste

66 With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gain

67 er cost and lower QALYs) or had unattractive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (>$300,000/QALY) c

68 timate cumulative costs, graft survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER - cost per ad

69 We used an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = difference

70 ffectiveness was determined by measuring the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as the incre

71 tal quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingne

72 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between test

73 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for HZ vacci

74 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the MR i

75 n-fatal stroke) over a 5-year period and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the per

76 onsensus exists about what threshold for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollars p

77 Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than th

78 At 20% coverage, DAAs had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27 251/q

79 he naloxone distribution strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $323 per

80 h 48% of adults treated with statins, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37,000/Q

81 Adaptive VL had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4100/yea

82 ely, compared with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $45017 pe

83 adult screening and treatment for HBV has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $540 per

84 an incremental cost of $825.67 producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $7.28 per

85 st of US$7051 (2653 to 13 038) generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8 (2 to

86 and incremental costs of $7,435, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $94,917/Q

87 We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 3 cryptoc

88 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CLT versu

89 showed that compared with no treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of DAAs at a

90 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different

91 ity-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different

92 TAU but also more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of euro 549

93 Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than

94 rgic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound10 7

95 T was the most effective strategy and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound9,20

96 el to simulate the costs, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SiDRP rel

97 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of vaccinati

98 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Xpert sca

99 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 3 years

100 ost was Canadian $2,725 per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $255,970

101 trategy was considered cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was <$100 00

102 The D.90, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was &OV0556;

103 An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculat

104 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculat

105 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculat

106 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculat

107 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was euro6840

108 the intervention to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was less tha

109 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presente

110 ar death, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net val

111 service care cost per life-year saved as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), based on 20

112 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as

113 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed a

114 of FLU+5FC vs FLU alone was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

115 LYG), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

116 lity-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

117 The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

118 ng the cost difference per life-year gained [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)].

119 Over 2 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; compared wit

120 years (QALYs), total cost (in 2018 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; from the hea

121 d total implementation costs; and determined incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and benefit

122 luate quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of policy 1

123 ness of ESD against EMR will be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) showing add

124 d in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

125 al-days, and costs over 180-days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, $/quality-a

126 t effective for all international travelers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $4.6M/measle

127 curacy 96%, $196 per patient) and long term (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $5,387-$8,43

128 ovascular disease DALY (calculated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) from a heal

129 nth testing was cost-effective for both MSM (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $1000/year

130 cremental positive test results per LYG) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICER].

131 large (US$158 versus US$51 per person year; incremental cost effectiveness ratio(ICER) US$889,267 pe

132 each of the trial's outcomes in a series of incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

133 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and assess

134 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and report

135 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are report

136 We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) between cu

137 tal charges (a proxy for costs) to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing

138 ID, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each c

139 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for high-d

140 In an incremental analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for screen

141 We evaluated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the us

142 ed life-years (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three

143 l diversion program and calculated resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the h

144 Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2013 Au

145 Outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2015 U.

146 Quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in dollars

147 ed quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the fou

148 Twenty-two studies assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the pro

149 ealthcare, and lost-productivity costs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of two pol

150 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per diagno

151 We assessed mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) under a wi

152 effectiveness was assessed by calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using net

153 ICURs) using quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using year

154 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were at le

155 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calcu

156 ts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calcu

157 ts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calcu

158 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compa

159 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were deter

160 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with Monte

161 rs (QALYs) (both discounted at 3% per year), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and clini

162 Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined a

163 ew HIV infections, life-years and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), over 10-y

164 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), using dis

165 ts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

166 values using the Consumer Price Index), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

167 ts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

168 sted life years) were used to calculate mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

169 rvival, life expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

170 cost-utility analysis model to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

171 lity-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

172 sted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

173 quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-

174 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, in USD per

175 s (30-40% chance of cost-effectiveness; mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] pound45,20

176 remental cost-effectiveness ratio, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is sensitive to cha

177 Sensitivity analyses show that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is sensitive to the

178 usted life-year (QALY), were calculated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $100,000

179 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than the per

180 obability that PCDT would achieve a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000/QALY or <$

181 AVR by approximately $1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gaine

182 with an economic evaluation to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, measured in cost

183 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net present value

184 tin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $198,867/QALY.

185 t strategy, NIVO followed by IPI produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $90,871/QALY, an

186 SGA had a 64% to 77% likelihood of having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100 000 or less

187 new infections among this population with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1003 per DALY a

188 ategories of prevention/treatment yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1331 per DALY a

189 LY gains with PCDT were greater, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $137 526/QALY; f

190 as the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17 016 relative

191 ario, oral targeted therapies resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $189,000 per qua

192 ent, which prevented 6.6 million DALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2241 per DALY a

193 d $15.979 billion over 10 years, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2720 and $1260

194 government's perspective, and results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35663 (95% CI,

195 ALY, and $4,650 per patient, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,500 per QALY

196 dose-escalation allopurinol therapy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $39 400 per qual

197 net monetary benefit of AUD$1.02 million and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4,684 per QALY

198 rs at a cost of $45 648, yielding a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40 361 per life

199 $4,949 increase in 1-year care costs, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $42,120 per qual

200 th ICU without telemedicine, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $45,320 per addi

201 monetary benefit of AUD$1.02 million and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4684 per QALY g

202 y-adjusted life-years (DALY) per annum at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $469 per DALY av

203 were $142,300 and $633,900, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $473,400/quality

204 tic cost-effectiveness analysis estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,265 with a w

205 t cost-effective in both populations with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $74,255 (HCC) an

206 in microsimulation modeling, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $76 442 per QALY

207 colorectal cancer penetrance resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $77,300 per QALY

208 135 000 (872 000-1 377 000), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $880 000 (697 00

209 years relative to barbiturate coma, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,565/quality-a

210 years) at a cost of $40,000, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $900,000 per QAL

211 s (95% CI, 0.23-0.86) longer survival for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9392.

212 n level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY.

213 0.02 QALYs versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QAL

214 T trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/QALY.

215 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of (18)F-FET PET/MR

216 on of pound1,285.77, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of - pound1,542.16/

217 10 (US$237.36) per patient at 1 year, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately po

218 The life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CABG compared to

219 uality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CaD $52,000/QALY

220 rrent risk-based screening, with a base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 14 312 per Q

221 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared wi

222 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared wi

223 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared wi

224 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECHO was $10,351

225 891]) compared with DM, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro 27 023 ($29

226 0 and costs by euro 670 million, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro 9,600/QALY.

227 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of high bundle adhe

228 time costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of LAA occlusion in

229 costs from the societal perspective, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of medical treatmen

230 Compared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizu

231 health system perspective, we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of OOKP treatment r

232 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PCI was $36 000

233 We assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PCV13 introducti

234 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of POC assays versu

235 interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound 1,359 per

236 produced higher total QALYs and costs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound 110 741/QA

237 red with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound 129 025 pe

238 y interval (UI) 208-232] per vaccine, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound20 000 per

239 for FACETS is pound453; findings suggest an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound2157 per ad

240 will cease to be cost-effective with a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound22 000 per

241 $184] to pound501 [US$738]), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound5,786 (US$8

242 We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of qHPV vaccination

243 ageal adenocarcinoma cases prevented and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of quality-adjusted

244 ost of S$67 840 (US$55 150), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of S$17 000/QALY (U

245 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SDS versus TAU w

246 At the current price, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of statin plus PCSK

247 cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of telemedicine in

248 The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the antibacteria

249 Consequently, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the full-adheren

250 Cost-effectiveness estimates showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$13.0 per disa

251 their stable partners over 10 years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$509 per DALY

252 We judged incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1010 (Zimbabwe

253 tiveness analyses, multistage strategies had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $52,000/QALY an

254 tinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life y

255 To evaluate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 0.5-mg ranibizu

256 history is modeled for 20 or 40 pack-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CaD $62,000 and

257 egies produced a gain in QALYs, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of euro33072 (US $

258 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab com

259 d without baseline vision-impairing DME, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab the

260 s (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of various HIV pre

261 Terms sought included a combination of "incremental cost-effectiveness ratio" OR "economic evalu

262 senting cost per quality-adjusted life year, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, or cost per life-

263 ted health status, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjuste

264 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from 28 500

265 Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -$119,

266 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained lower than

267 Among patients with LDL-C >=100 mg/dl, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below US$

268 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for anti-

269 benefits and result in substantially higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than the current r

270 mproving the quit rate by 22.5% improves the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to CaD $24,000/QALY

271 he interventions investigated and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to compare their c

272 FujiLAM was considered cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (USD/year-of-life s

273 parameters in the sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio value stays below t

274 The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18239 (95% CI,

275 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $36,001/quality

276 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $364,083 per QA

277 -719.7 to 904.1) per 1000 women; the average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $53 per DALY av

278 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $571,240 per QA

279 tality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QAL

280 08 (95% CI, $47,879-$48,073) (P < .001); the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $782,598 per ad

281 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $8289 per QALY

282 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated and

283 calculated and the empirical 95% CI for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated from

284 G remained more costly than DES-PCI, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was favorable ($16

285 fied early ART as very cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the a

286 d strategies as highly cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the W

287 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was pound14 284 for

288 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was pound5374 per Q

289 treatment cost of US$5,850, the mean overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$92,200 per Q

290 variables with the greatest influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were bevacizumab co

291 Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per Q

292 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated if

293 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to

294 lity-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

295 ted, quality-adjusted life years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

296 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at

297 ality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for

298 Over a 40 year time horizon, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were pound22 201 (

299 n rates altered life years saved but not the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, while the incremen

300 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with discounted (3