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

1 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

2 ime) was the most significant determinant of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

3 cost and effectiveness was expressed via the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

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

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

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

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

8 rs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

9 y-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

10 e-years, cancer cases and deaths, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

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

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

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

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

15 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2010 U.S. dollars

16 the CRC-SPIN model assuming 100% adherence (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $26,300 per life-y

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

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

19 ality-adjusted life-years, we constructed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and performed a net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31 This equates to a 75% reduction in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with the $

32 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with warf

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

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

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

36 The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (Deltacosts/DeltaQA

37 ncy, per-person costs (2010 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (dollars per years

38 Third, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates the addit

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

40 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as doll

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

42 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CTA compared wi

43 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for fidaxomicin bas

44 Compared with warfarin, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LAA occlusion w

45 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for NHAS compared w

46 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCI compared wi

47 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib was

48 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR was thus e

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

50 The risk-adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the liberal ver

51 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the second dose

52 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the strategy of

53 5- and 20-year clinical outcomes, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for (1) Current Pa

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

55 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for CT alone and A

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

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

58 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for surgery in all

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

60 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the same scree

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

62 We generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the hospital

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

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

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

66 EVL and BB were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremen

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

68 We estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing co

69 usted life years (QALYs) and calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) comparing tr

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

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

72 hs at an additional per person cost of $100 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,490/ye

73 routine coverage rates of 68% would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1.50 ($U

74 ompared with IV-CARBO/PAC, IP-CIS/PAC had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $180,022

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

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

77 billion); birth-cohort screening produces an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37,700 p

78 with 20.93 for surveillance, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4,869/QA

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

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

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

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

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

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

85 case, the anthracycline-based AT arm has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 39,982 do

86 compared to medical therapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 48,700 do

87 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ACEI+BB+A

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

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

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

91 l initiation ages, the best strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than

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

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

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

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

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

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

98 Using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of

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

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

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

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

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

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

105 The intervention costs were measured and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was derived.

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

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

108 The primary incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the incr

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

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

111 Our outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with $A50,0

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

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

114 costs; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

115 ears gained (LYG), costs (in 2011 euros) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

116 usted life-years (QALYs), lifetime cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

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

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

119 This study sought to quantify the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of angioten

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

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

122 To compare strategies, we report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), in US doll

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

124 e, followed by coronary CT angiography only (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $17516).

125 Cost per DFD was $188 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $188; 95%

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

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

128 need to be > or =42% and > or =11% to yield incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) <50,000 do

129 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) based on F

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

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

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

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

134 The analysis goal was to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the Co

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

142 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per diagno

143 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per progre

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

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

146 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calcu

147 ined, and changes in fatigue and disability; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compu

148 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were deter

149 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

158 e in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

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

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

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

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

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

164 At $5 per dose, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in low-, lower-midd

165 pted a societal perspective and estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in U.S. dollars per

166 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increased to $50 00

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

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

169 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than the per

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

171 n the base case and economically attractive (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY) in 7

172 ncy and quality-adjusted life expectancy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios <$10 000 per life-

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

174 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, net present value

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

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

177 NSS had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,152,529 per Q

178 a threshold of 0.350 x 10(9) cells/L has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1200 per year o

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

180 ible interval, -0.001 to 0.029) QALYs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $15.7 thousand (

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

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

183 ion care management for workers result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19 976 per qual

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

185 om $7280 to $9890 per woman, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2700/year of li

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

187 59 quality-adjusted life-years), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34 950/quality-

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

189 us quo, the screen-and-treat strategy has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,088 per QALY

190 BRAF mutation testing was preferred, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,200 per life

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

192 ability-adjusted life-years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $363 per disabil

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

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

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

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

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

198 ental societal cost of $1365 per patient and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $52,554/quality-

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

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

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

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

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

204 prasugrel was $996 per patient, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9727 per life-y

205 0.02 QALYs versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QAL

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

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

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

209 ed all other strategies for BRCA1 and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2281 dollars per

210 0 discounted years in life expectancy and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 50,500 dollars p

211 survival gain over non-CT follow-up with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 9,042,300 dollar

212 nt (95% CI: 55.87 to 492.87) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately po

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

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

215 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared wi

216 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared wi

217 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared wi

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

219 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of enoxaparin compa

220 e, the combined use of MRI and PET showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro2,948 (euro1

221 year gained for the baseline scenario and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro4,105 per li

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

230 tion, and shown to be cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound24 000.

231 $184] to pound501 [US$738]), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound5,786 (US$8

232 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $70

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

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

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

236 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening with 3

237 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of screening with 6

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

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

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

241 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the continuous-f

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

243 The costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this patient-dir

244 For the 5-year time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $14,859/quali

245 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of using lamivudine

246 societal costs of rotavirus and benefits and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of vaccination.

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

248 ria at 10-, 5-, 2-, and 1-year intervals had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $9000, $11,000,

249 estyle modification was cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $A2748 and $A84

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

251 ce of 1.0% and annual incidence of 0.12% had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 30,800 dollars/

252 t difference of 572 dollars per patient with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 4,678 dollars p

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

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

255 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab com

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

257 Over a wide range of variables, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the screen and

258 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the strategies

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

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

261 ilateral mastectomy and oophorectomy) had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over oophorectomy a

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

263 rse-led intervention was not cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio pound28 933 per QAL

264 and when performed with stress testing, its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from $26,200

265 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for anti-

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

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

268 The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated to b

269 with LGD, when S3 was compared with S2, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18,231/quality

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

271 The discounted lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $3,071 per qual

272 In sexually active patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $30,020 per QAL

273 The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $359,000 per qu

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

275 cost of the intervention was $1,927 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $43 per additio

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

277 08 (95% CI, $47,879-$48,073) (P < .001); the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $782,598 per ad

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

279 significant (P = .04) and the mean base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $85 634/QALY.

280 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for

281 The 95% credible interval for incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was cost-saving to

282 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 978 per

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

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

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

286 Across a range of CTA costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not materially

287 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was pound14 284 for

288 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was pound5374 per Q

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

290 In a comparison of S3 with S2, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $205,500, $12

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

292 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated if

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

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

295 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

296 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed to d

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

298 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then calculat

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

300 in were 50% of that observed in JUPITER, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would increase to $