ライフサイエンスコーパス: cost-effectiveness

1 rmal conductivity to avoid thermal loss, and cost effectiveness.

2 a longer stabilizing effect of CXL increases cost effectiveness.

3 e systems, priority setting, and the role of cost effectiveness.

4 imited evidence base, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness.

5 tery disease to assess clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

6 health care resources, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.

7 shold of $100000 per QALY was used to assess cost-effectiveness.

8 ictions, were used to evaluate the policies' cost-effectiveness.

9 among initial cases, and 10-year incremental cost-effectiveness.

10 reatment completion and discontinuation, and cost-effectiveness.

11 mpatibility, room temperature operation, and cost-effectiveness.

12 g the harms of overdiagnosis and maintaining cost-effectiveness.

13 in morbidity, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

14 e performed to maximize clinical utility and cost-effectiveness.

15 tion of progression to MDR-TB, and confirmed cost-effectiveness.

16 s well within the range of acceptability for cost-effectiveness.

17 ined the influence of input variation on the cost-effectiveness.

18 lue for money judged using US benchmarks for cost-effectiveness.

19 Rabbit ATG appears to achieve excellent cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (80% of the reci

20 y offer improved immunogenicity, simplicity, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and safety.

21 CEA offers a standardized means of comparing cost-effectiveness among interventions.

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

23 Preliminary cost-effectiveness analyses of proprotein convertase sub

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

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

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

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

28 he proposed intervention and finally perform cost effectiveness analysis of the results.

29 tiveness ratio" OR "economic evaluation" OR "cost effectiveness analysis" OR "cost utility analysis"

30 Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a research method u

31 nd eliminated wait time (EWT), and perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing RWT and EWT with c

32 We did a cost-effectiveness analysis for these strategies, implem

33 to our knowledge there has been no previous cost-effectiveness analysis in pediatric IF including IR

34 A cost-effectiveness analysis of the study results demonst

35 m this review could be used to inform future cost-effectiveness analysis on the impact of LTBI screen

36 We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess diagnosis and trea

37 We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine optimal CRC scr

38 A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model from th

39 nts with atrial fibrillation, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using patient-level data fro

40 We did a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis using person-level data and

41 lled trial with two open parallel arms and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12 tertiary

42 In cost-effectiveness analysis, choice for both age groups

43 In a cost-effectiveness analysis, the average cost of total-b

44 In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the care bundle was estimat

45 For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the primary outcome was the

46 For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we used a transmission mode

47 Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

48 A wide availability, cost effectiveness and better tolerability of ultrasonog

49 ons, especially regarding clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness and contextual issues affecting succe

50 dedicated service for Barrett's oesophagus, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of current survei

51 no economic evaluation has yet assessed its cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact.

52 Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of pressure

53 The projected cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of preventive chemot

54 Here, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of the preventive ch

55 f this clinical service requires evidence of cost-effectiveness and data addressing potential overtre

56 safety, patient and physician acceptability, cost-effectiveness and its compatibility with informatio

57 Owing to the cost-effectiveness and less-invasive nature of this proc

58 cess, we sought to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management o

59 an be utilized to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness and, hence, the sustainability of bio

60 of patient preference, lower bleeding rates, cost effectiveness, and reduced risk of mortality in hig

61 because of their large specific capacities, cost effectiveness, and the abundance of organic precurs

62 ociated with these devices and their overall cost effectiveness, and we highlight important potential

63 alysis, an evaluation of the potential cost, cost-effectiveness, and government budgetary impact of a

64 se that will benefit patients and/or improve cost-effectiveness, and it requires the collaboration of

65 tive trial is needed to assess the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and public health impact of this int

66 lines by accelerating efficiency, maximizing cost-effectiveness, and raising ultimate success rates.

67 obesity is becoming more common, but data on cost-effectiveness are limited.

68 plant DAA treatment strategy trended towards cost-effectiveness as HCV(+) donor liver availability de

69 research is needed to determine program and cost-effectiveness as part of the WIC program.

70 We examined the survival and cost-effectiveness associated with sorafenib in elderly

71 ution, combined with its noninvasive nature, cost-effectiveness, availability, and portability.

72 No general conclusion could be reached about cost effectiveness, because of limitations in the eviden

73 -36 questionnaire, Von Korff pain score, and cost-effectiveness between both study groups.

74 We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of monthly ZA, ZA every 3 months

75 Furthermore, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and budget impact analy

76 atment versus deferred DAA treatment using a cost-effectiveness decision analysis model to estimate i

77 he conventional microfluidic chips including cost-effectiveness, ease of fabrication, and ease of use

78 fe years (QALYs), costs in U.S. dollars, and cost-effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effe

79 The cost-effectiveness for skin cancer screening is higher i

80 cal utility (AII duration and survival), and cost-effectiveness from an institutional perspective wer

81 line expands recommended statin use, but its cost-effectiveness has not been compared with other guid

82 achieving reasonable efficiencies, and thus cost-effectiveness, have hampered significant research p

83 ietal perspective, we assessed the potential cost-effectiveness, health gains, and financial impacts

84 having a monogenic disorder and evaluate its cost-effectiveness if WES had been available at differen

85 gens and confirmation of its feasibility and cost-effectiveness in multiple settings.

86 ) on treatment effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness in the 2 years after a natural disast

87 existing risk group-based vaccine programme cost-effectiveness in the presence of the paediatric vac

88 Cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjuste

89 ic conditions has high diagnostic yield, and cost-effectiveness is maximized by early application in

90 ith aripiprazole, further analysis including cost-effectiveness is needed to understand the net utili

91 However, its cost-effectiveness is seriously hampered by the relative

92 reventing further infections in MSM, but its cost-effectiveness is uncertain.

93 their uncontested advantages of simplicity, cost-effectiveness, limited necessity of laboratory infr

94 clinical psychology, epidemiology, genomics, cost-effectiveness modeling, pathology, bioethics, and p

95 These findings should be considered in cost-effectiveness models informing vaccine choice and m

96 model assumptions were varied, with lifetime cost-effectiveness most affected by the price of apixaba

97 al positive effect on patient outcome and to cost effectiveness of amyloid imaging.

98 To evaluate the cost effectiveness of corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL

99 tant breeding traits, and (d) improvement in cost effectiveness of large-scale genotyping.

100 tic review aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of nurse-led self-management for pati

101 The projected cost effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors does not meet gen

102 Here, we estimate the system-level cost effectiveness of reducing CO2 emissions with flexib

103 on oF FactORs ImpacTing CLinical Outcome and Cost EffectiveneSS of the S-ICD) registry is collecting

104 The cost effectiveness of these approaches needs further eva

105 We compared the cost-effectiveness of 12 weeks of HCV therapy before or

106 To examine the cost-effectiveness of 2 population-based skin cancer scr

107 e compared the 96-week clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of 2 strategies: no IR testing vs IR

108 of pound22 000 per QALY and a probability of cost-effectiveness of 20%.

109 tudy calculated the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of 4 strategies: no choice, pediatric

110 We investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a behavioural activation intervent

111 We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a brief psychological treatment (H

112 To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of a clinical practice guideline (CPG

113 This trial raises concerns about the cost-effectiveness of a fluoride-based intervention deli

114 To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred pressure ulcer p

115 To use the trial results to determine the cost-effectiveness of a PCSK9i and statin treatment stra

116 vaccine uptake among girls and assessed the cost-effectiveness of a sex-neutral program.

117 e were unable to draw any conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

118 found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

119 esizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions.

120 ss evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions.

121 Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which

122 Overall, the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodol

123 cal utility of a molecular diagnosis and the cost-effectiveness of alternative diagnostic trajectorie

124 We then compared effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative policy options.

125 We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative public health response

126 To assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of apixaban therapy compared with war

127 To assess the cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for adolescents

128 the effects after treatment termination, the cost-effectiveness of CAP over 12 months, and the effect

129 oup randomized controlled trial measured the cost-effectiveness of caries prevention in caries-free c

130 reover there is very little evidence for the cost-effectiveness of changing care providers from docto

131 evaluate the additional benefit in terms of cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy surveillance in a scre

132 objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of complying with HCC screening guide

133 ur objective was to determine the impact and cost-effectiveness of confirmatory HIV testing for EID p

134 studies evaluating the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of continuing anticoagulant therapy b

135 We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Counselling for Alcohol Problems (

136 in lifetime health outcomes) to compare the cost-effectiveness of CXL versus conventional management

137 , parameter variations did not influence the cost-effectiveness of CXL.

138 ials are needed to compare effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different low-vision (LV) programs

139 , we developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for sequencin

140 unded by the limited evidence base regarding cost-effectiveness of different treatment regimens for t

141 The cost-effectiveness of each moisturizer was determined by

142 Further, we did not model or compare the cost-effectiveness of each proposed policy.

143 imulation models to evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of early corneal cross-linking (CXL)

144 dy provides strong economic evidence for the cost-effectiveness of early CXL in keratoconus.

145 or a method that combines the simplicity and cost-effectiveness of ELISA with the sensitivity and spe

146 To determine the cost-effectiveness of etanercept-methotrexate versus tri

147 To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in patients with athero

148 We estimated the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of five alternative strategies: no ad

149 the effects after treatment termination, the cost-effectiveness of HAP over 12 months, and the effect

150 Y, thresholds generally used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of health interventions in Canada and

151 nvestigated this trade-off by estimating the cost-effectiveness of HIV screening in primary care.

152 have provided evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV treatment adherence interventi

153 ct of this on long term outcomes and related cost-effectiveness of home visiting has not been establi

154 addition, we also investigate the potential cost-effectiveness of hydrocele surgery.

155 To estimate the cost-effectiveness of individualized control versus unif

156 The cost-effectiveness of integrated RTC strategies is furth

157 We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of IR by comparing 1 scenario with IR

158 We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of IR in terms of costs and life-year

159 To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuva

160 Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postop

161 Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breas

162 am coastal marine ecosystem and contrast the cost-effectiveness of marine- and land-based conservatio

163 This study calculates the cost-effectiveness of methicillin-resistant S aureus pre

164 Due to the short-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive techniques, hos

165 Purpose To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multiparametric diagnostic magneti

166 straints, when predicting and evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new tuberculosis diagnostics in So

167 To determine the cost-effectiveness of OAT for all treatment recipients c

168 o evaluate the long-term clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of OCA as a second-line treatment for

169 We evaluated the potential health impact and cost-effectiveness of offering vaccination to MSM who vi

170 To determine the cost-effectiveness of perioperative administration of pa

171 Further research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of personalized warfarin dosing.

172 mes, evidence supports the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies that address affordabilit

173 views the evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies to reduce alcohol-related

174 e objective of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of pre-LT versus post-LT treatment wi

175 METHOD AND Using the Cost-effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEP

176 More studies are required to clarify the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery.

177 This study sought to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine administration of pasireot

178 Research is needed to establish the cost-effectiveness of routine M. genitalium testing in s

179 ancreatic fistula (POPF) and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine pasireotide use.

180 The incremental cost-effectiveness of SC compared with UC was $3428.71 t

181 If clinical benefit is proven, then the cost-effectiveness of screening for and the treatment of

182 This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of silk garments (in addition to stan

183 Purpose To assess the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therap

184 nts (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic

185 review by providing economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of studies identified after 2012, and

186 linical trial of DAA use for PEP and the low cost-effectiveness of such an intervention is not suppor

187 our analysis assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery to manage NASH.

188 ascular Disease Policy Model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the ACC/AHA guideline relative to

189 We therefore examined the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Adherence Improving self-Manag

190 Purpose To analyze the cost-effectiveness of the American Society for Gastroint

191 was to assess the epidemiological effect and cost-effectiveness of the existing elderly and risk grou

192 igible for both RFA and SBRT to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the following treatment strategies

193 th lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-a

194 ublic health implications for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in the long term.

195 to reach firm conclusions on the clinical or cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

196 We compared the cost-effectiveness of the personalized monitoring strate

197 We assessed cost-effectiveness of the RHIVA2 trial by fitting model

198 Acceptability was analysed and finally, the cost-effectiveness of the surveillance strategies was de

199 arm during the 6-month follow-up period; and cost-effectiveness of the VHS as measured by estimated i

200 , it would be useful to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment modalities.

201 eeded to understand the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of this approach to risk stratificati

202 Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of this approach.

203 rch is needed to assess generalizability and cost-effectiveness of this intervention and to understan

204 To our knowledge, long-term cost-effectiveness of this therapy has not been evaluate

205 The authors evaluated cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor + low-dose ASA in patie

206 ut found no evidence that Xpert improved the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis diagnosis.

207 ability that Xpert introduction improved the cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis diagnostics.

208 We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of two alternative direct-acting anti

209 e aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of two brief psychological treatments

210 To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using a daily moisturizer as preve

211 The study demonstrates the utility and cost-effectiveness of utilizing existing big data source

212 The cost-effectiveness of VIT needs to be established.

213 No analyses have been performed modeling the cost-effectiveness of wait time reduction for IBI.

214 of the vaccines differed, will influence the cost-effectiveness of which vaccine to use in immunizati

215 We investigated the cost-effectiveness of Xpert in the real world during nat

216 1 review) were also generally effective for cost-effectiveness outcomes.

217 From a cost-effectiveness perspective, individuals with more af

218 influenza cases by >100,000 with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.

219 The simplicity, cost-effectiveness, rapidity, robustness, selectivity an

220 Strategies with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per quality-adju

221 litaxel chemotherapy produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $198,867/QALY.

222 NIVO followed by IPI produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $90,871/QALY, and first-line

223 ative costs, graft survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER - cost per additional yea

224 We used an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = difference in lifetime

225 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between test and no-test

226 distribution strategy yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $323 per QALY, and na

227 tal costs of $7,435, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $94,917/QALY gained.

228 s, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound10 726 per QALY.

229 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of vaccinating boys was

230 An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for a 10-

231 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was euro6840.75 (95% CI

232 ality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net value-based pri

233 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as euros per QA

234 Over 2 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; compared with brief inte

235 cost of HCV recurrence) was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with HCV DAA treatme

236 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NHAS compared with Current

237 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCI compared with MT was $1

238 We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from a health system perspectiv

239 argeted therapies resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $189,000 per quality-adjuste

240 s perspective, and results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35663 (95% CI, cost savings

241 00 and $633,900, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $473,400/quality-adjusted li

242 tive in both populations with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $74,255 (HCC) and $36,583 (D

243 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECHO was $10,351 per QALY co

244 UI) 208-232] per vaccine, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound20 000 per quality-adju

245 to be cost-effective with a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound22 000 per QALY and a p

246 At the current price, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of statin plus PCSK9i therapy w

247 ith ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiveness ratio suggesting intermediate value b

248 ought included a combination of "incremental cost-effectiveness ratio" OR "economic evaluation" OR "c

249 g, basing coverage decisions on a particular cost-effectiveness ratio).

250 ty-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB).

251 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net present value of lifetime

252 st-effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

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

254 ision analysis model to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted lif

255 y-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of policy 1 versus poli

256 In an incremental analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for screening plus sur

257 Outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2015 U.S. dollars p

258 djusted life years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the four prevention

259 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for so

260 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined.

261 adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

262 g the Consumer Price Index), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

263 Main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and numbers needed to treat fo

264 ar clinical outcomes, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for (1) Current Pace of detect

265 atment only for F3 patients; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for providing surgery or ILI o

266 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for surgery in all F0-F3 patie

267 To evaluate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 0.5-mg ranibizumab therapy

268 ed a gain in QALYs, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of euro33072 (US $35475) per Q

269 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab compared with P

270 seline vision-impairing DME, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab therapy compare

271 d life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

272 Over a 40 year time horizon, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were pound22 201 (95% credible

273 omic evaluation to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, measured in cost per quality-

274 safety, clinical efficacy, best setting, and cost-effectiveness remain to be addressed in further stu

275 ugh patient engagement as part of methods in cost-effectiveness research in existing published studie

276 f randomized controlled trials demonstrating cost effectiveness, screening of asymptomatic men cannot

277 While absolute risk and cost-effectiveness should be considered, additional CVD

278 roves health outcomes and is cost-effective; cost-effectiveness significantly increases when lowering

279 horizon of 50 years was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness (societal perspective) and budget eff

280 discounts are necessary to meet conventional cost-effectiveness standards.

281 Potential cost-effective barriers in cost-effectiveness studies mean that budgetary impact an

282 Jan Hontelez and colleagues argue that the cost-effectiveness studies of HIV treatment scale-up nee

283 eatment options with patients and to support cost-effectiveness studies.

284 The very limited evidence found on modelling cost-effectiveness suggested that VIT was likely to be c

285 We took a 20 year time horizon, used a cost effectiveness threshold of US$500 per DALY averted,

286 nal Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold (about pound30 000 per QALY

287 Under base case assumptions and a cost-effectiveness threshold of pound15 000 per QALY, th

288 te for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of pound20 000/quality-adju

289 ains cost-effective, driven by the choice of cost-effectiveness threshold.

290 ART initiation, adherence behavior, and the cost-effectiveness threshold.

291 if less than $398 (based on the World Bank's cost-effectiveness thresholds for low income countries).

292 PRETATION: With the likely move to decreased cost-effectiveness thresholds, reassessment of existing

293 ovascular disease exceeds generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds.

294 atic literature reviews of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to identify priority interventions.

295 The primary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness values ($/QALY) for each moisturizer

296 Gains in health status were observed, and cost-effectiveness was better with closed tunnel EVH.

297 Cost-effectiveness was greatest using a fluoroquinolone/

298 Evidence on cost-effectiveness was inconclusive.

299 , morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness was measured after 1 year of follow-u

300 pt is at the core of initiatives for merging cost effectiveness with maximized clinical efficiency an