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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 Cost-effectiveness analyses can be clinically relevant a

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

17 Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have become increasin

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

19 Several cost-effectiveness analyses consistently demonstrated th

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

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

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

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

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

25 Cost-effectiveness analyses have been performed to deter

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

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

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

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

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

31 In cost-effectiveness analyses, multistage strategies had i

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

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

34 Cost-effectiveness analyses of blood safety initiatives

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

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

37 Preliminary cost-effectiveness analyses of proprotein convertase sub

38 Systematic cost-effectiveness analyses of regimens used for prevent

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

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

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

42 Nevertheless, cost-effectiveness analyses of VTE treatments conducted

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

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

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

46 All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference ca

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

48 Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that 6-mo prophylaxis

49 Cost-effectiveness analyses that measured health effects

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

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