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

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

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

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

4 QALYs were used to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

5 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

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

7 as determined by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

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

9 rt failure hospitalizations, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

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

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

12 d 97 studies published through 2018 with 156 cost-effectiveness ratios.

13 alculating CLABSIs prevented and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

14 reening at ages 10 and 20 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $106 841/quality-adjusted life-

15 ve than ET with an echinocandin (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $111,084 per additional surviv

16 cardiac events (5% versus 10%; P<0.010) and cost-effectiveness ratio (119.98+/-250.92 versus 218.12+

17 ase survival but at higher cost (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $197,906/quality-adjusted lif

18 d with open repair at diagnosis (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $27,700/QALY).

19 adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (3% annual discount rate).

20 ,156 (95% CI, -$158 to $92,179) (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $38,648 per quality-adjusted

21 all groups considered (base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $39,800).

22 son, and was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $420 000/quality-adjusted life

23 2 (95% CI, -$19,035 to $41,019) (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $44,615 per extra survival [9

24 ctive in terms of cost per QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $70831-$136332).

25 ctive in terms of cost per QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $92446).

26 The main outcomes were lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and annual budget impact, asses

27 tiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit of ado

28 and Medicare claims to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and examined the number of wom

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

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

31 babilistic sensitivity analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the willingness-to-pay thr

32 The main outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as measured by cost per quality

33 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health car

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

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

36 antibacterial envelope was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below contemporary benchmarks i

37 o be highly cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between about 2,000 and 5,000

38 xamined study characteristics and stratified cost-effectiveness ratios by type of cancer, treatment,

39 on's cost per ETU admission averted (average cost-effectiveness ratio) by season (wet and dry), count

40 We extracted cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and appraised economic

41 of 10-65%, we estimated a median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared with current intervent

42 Using data from PROTECT AF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with warfarin and dab

43 g HCV treatment, and we computed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per QALY gained, in 2012

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

45 primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (discounted US$ per disability-

46 cured; cirrhosis cases avoided; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios; DOC costs (2016 US dollars);

47 s with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of abla

48 opensity score matching with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-a

49 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as dollar per quali

50 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for 1 week of AmB and 5FC versu

51 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared

52 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CTA compared with SPECT was

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

54 years (QALYs) of 0.08, yield an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCDT of $222 041/QALY gaine

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

56 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib was > $550,000

57 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the CVR-based strategy comp

58 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the strategy of computerize

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

60 adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for 60 Framingham-based, non-l

61 in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/l

62 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for CT alone and AVS alone wer

63 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for PLA were INT$316 per case

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

65 tments for patients with PA, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for screening patients with CT

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

67 osts were then used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the competing strategies.

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

69 With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gained, PCDT is

70 lower QALYs) or had unattractive incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (>$300,000/QALY) compared with

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

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

73 was determined by measuring the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as the incremental cost

74 adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingness-to-pay th

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

76 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for HZ vaccine versus no

77 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the MR imaging IPH s

78 ke) over a 5-year period and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of

79 sts about what threshold for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollars per quality-a

80 Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the country-sp

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

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

83 lts treated with statins, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37,000/QALY compared

84 Adaptive VL had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4100/year of life sa

85 d with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $45017 per QALY for t

86 ing and treatment for HBV has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $540 per DALY averted

87 tal cost of $825.67 producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $7.28 per DALY averte

88 1 (2653 to 13 038) generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8 (2 to 29) per DALY

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

90 We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 3 cryptococcal induct

91 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CLT versus LR ranged

92 compared with no treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of DAAs at a price USD 4

93 life expectancy (QALE), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different treatment i

94 sted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of different treatment o

95 more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of euro 549 per reductio

96 Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than US$3250 per

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

98 st effective strategy and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound9,204 per additi

99 te the costs, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SiDRP relative to FP-

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

101 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Xpert scale-up ($169

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

103 dian $2,725 per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $255,970 per QALY ga

104 considered cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was <$100 000/quality-ad

105 The D.90, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was &OV0556;7192 per ave

106 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated assuming

107 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated between t

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

109 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated in 2014 U

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

111 tion to be cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was less than US$750/yea

112 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented as costs i

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

114 cost per life-year saved as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), based on 2017 US dollar

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

116 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as euros per

117 vs FLU alone was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

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

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

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

121 ), total cost (in 2018 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; from the health-care sec

122 ementation costs; and determined incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and benefit-cost-ratios

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

124 against EMR will be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) showing additional cost

125 -adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

126 costs over 180-days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, $/quality-adjusted life

127 for all international travelers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $4.6M/measles case avert

128 $196 per patient) and long term (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $5,387-$8,430/QALY), dep

129 sease DALY (calculated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) from a health system pe

130 was cost-effective for both MSM (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $1000/year of life save

131 sitive test results per LYG) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICER].

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

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

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

135 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in 2016 U

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

137 adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each city (10-year

138 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for high-dose versus s

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

140 We evaluated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the use of necitum

141 s (QALYs), costs per person, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three alternative

142 program and calculated resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the health system

143 Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2013 Australian dol

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

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

146 Twenty-two studies assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the programs.

147 nd lost-productivity costs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of two policy scenario

148 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per diagnosis of AHI w

149 We assessed mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) under a willingness-to

150 s was assessed by calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using net policy cost

151 quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using years of blindne

152 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were at least US$970 0

153 adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for ea

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

155 adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a

156 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared to a $10

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

158 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with Monte Carlo simul

159 both discounted at 3% per year), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and clinical outcomes

160 Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incrementa

161 tions, life-years and costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), over 10-year and life

162 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), using discounted cost

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

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

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

166 ars) were used to calculate mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

167 expectancy, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

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

169 d life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

170 ars (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

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

172 ance of cost-effectiveness; mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] pound45,200 [range pou

173 t-effectiveness ratio, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is sensitive to changes in adhe

174 nsitivity analyses show that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is sensitive to the efficacy of

175 ear (QALY), were calculated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $100,000/QALY consid

176 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than the per capita gross

177 Vaccination with RZV yields cost-effectiveness ratios lower than those for many reco

178 at PCDT would achieve a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000/QALY or <$150 000/QALY

179 ximately $1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.

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

181 blished in the years 1996-2012 (including 44 cost-effectiveness ratios) met inclusion criteria, 22 (7

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

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

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

185 % to 77% likelihood of having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100 000 or less per QALY at

186 ns among this population with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1003 per DALY averted.

187 prevention/treatment yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1331 per DALY averted.

188 h PCDT were greater, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $137 526/QALY; for femoral-p

189 cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17 016 relative to oral van

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

191 revented 6.6 million DALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2241 per DALY averted, when

192 llion over 10 years, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2720 and $1260 per year of

193 ad a mean loss of 0.34 QALYs, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $29 600 per QALY gained.

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

195 650 per patient, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,500 per QALY compared wi

196 benefit of AUD$1.02 million and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4,684 per QALY gained.

197 of $45 648, yielding a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40 361 per life-year gained

198 ase in 1-year care costs, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $42,120 per quality-adjusted

199 %) and mortality rate by 64% (46%-78%), at a cost-effectiveness ratio of $45 300 per QALY gained ($27

200 ut telemedicine, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $45,320 per additional quali

201 nefit of AUD$1.02 million and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4684 per QALY gained.

202 ife-years (DALY) per annum at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $469 per DALY averted when c

203 00 and $633,900, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $473,400/quality-adjusted li

204 ectiveness analysis estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,265 with a wide 95% CI f

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

206 able to pesticide self-poisoning, reaching a cost-effectiveness ratio of $75 per HLYG (95% UI 58-99)

207 lation modeling, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $76 442 per QALY.

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

209 000-1 377 000), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $880 000 (697 000-1 564 000)

210 ive to barbiturate coma, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,565/quality-adjusted life

211 cost of $40,000, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $900,000 per QALY.

212 .23-0.86) longer survival for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9392.

213 needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY.

214 versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QALY.

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

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

217 6) per patient at 1 year, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately pound 12,900 (

218 The life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CABG compared to PCI was $30

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

220 ased screening, with a base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 14 312 per QALY.

221 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF was

222 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with ACDF.

223 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CTDR compared with tradition

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

225 red with DM, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro 27 023 ($29 725) per LY

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

227 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of high bundle adherence was $1

228 he societal perspective, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of medical treatment, trabecule

229 with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $24,2

230 m perspective, we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of OOKP treatment relative to n

231 We assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PCV13 introduction by integr

232 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of POC assays versus convention

233 I] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound 1,359 per quality-adju

234 her total QALYs and costs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound 110 741/QALY compared

235 hotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound 129 025 per QALY gaine

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

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

238 nd501 [US$738]), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound5,786 (US$8,521) per QA

239 We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of qHPV vaccination compared to

240 840 (US$55 150), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of S$17 000/QALY (US$13 820/QAL

241 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SDS versus TAU was pound43 6

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

243 iveness analysis to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of telemedicine in the ICU, com

244 The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the antibacterial envelope c

245 Consequently, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the full-adherence versus th

246 ffectiveness estimates showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$13.0 per disability-adjus

247 partners over 10 years, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$509 per DALY averted.

248 We judged incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1010 (Zimbabwe's annual gr

249 e base case analysis, national bans produced cost-effectiveness ratios of $94 per HLYG (95% UI 73-123

250 630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,1

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

252 modeled for 20 or 40 pack-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CaD $62,000 and CaD $43,000

253 ariations of model assumptions; however, the cost-effectiveness ratios of dose escalation with allopu

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

255 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ranibizumab compared with P

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

257 djusted life-years [QALYs]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of various HIV prevention stra

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

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

260 tatus, intraocular pressure, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year

261 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from 28 500 pound (low c

262 Reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from -$119,635 (hypothe

263 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained lower than the willing

264 patients with LDL-C >=100 mg/dl, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below US$100,000 per

265 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for anti-VEGFs and st

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

267 d result in substantially higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than the current recommendatio

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

269 ions investigated and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to compare their cost-effectiv

270 considered cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (USD/year-of-life saved) was <$

271 in the sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio value stays below the threshold

272 The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18239 (95% CI, dominant to

273 The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325,000 per QALY gained (r

274 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $36,001/quality-adjusted li

275 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $364,083 per QALY.

276 4.1) per 1000 women; the average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $53 per DALY averted.

277 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $571,240 per QALY.

278 rd ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained.

279 $47,879-$48,073) (P < .001); the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $782,598 per additional qua

280 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $8289 per QALY for trabecul

281 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated and the empirica

282 and the empirical 95% CI for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated from 5,000 bootst

283 ore costly than DES-PCI, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was favorable ($16 537 per qual

284 as highly cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the World Bank cl

285 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was pound14 284 for initial len

286 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was pound5374 per QALY gain.

287 st of US$5,850, the mean overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$92,200 per QALY (base ca

288 th the greatest influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were bevacizumab cost, overall

289 that yielded $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY cost-effectiveness ratios were $22,200 and $42,400, resp

290 Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained a

291 ning low-income to high-income settings, and cost-effectiveness ratios were analysed at the country-s

292 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated if sufficient

293 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to estimate th

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

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

296 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at $7.93 (95% C

297 ed life years (QALYs), cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for each strate

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

299 red life years saved but not the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, while the incremental cost-eff

300 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with discounted (3% per year)