There is a real need to evaluate programs particularly in terms of outcomes and, given there were no economic evaluations, costs.
To sum up, we decided to perform two evaluations: Cost-Efficiency (multi-objective).
Additionally to the primary outcomes on efficacy/effectiveness and safety, the results provided in economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact) could be a crucial source to be used by health care provider for the purpose of decision making [23].
The general description of both evaluations (cost-efficiency, cost) of this second study is basically the same as shown in Section 4. Algorithms/tools were subjected to each one of the 80 test instances, one at a time, and the outcome was recorded.
Ten studies are classified as full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses [ 19- 23] and cost-utility analyses [ 8, 24- 27]; no eligible cost-benefit analyses were identified).
Only full health economic evaluations (cost-minimisation, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit analyses) of topical growth factors and bioengineered skin products for the treatment of therapy-resistant chronic wounds in English, French or German language were considered.
Pubmed and Cinahl databases were searched for all years, limiting the search to English language using the combinations of the following search terms: "economic evaluations", "cost-effectiveness analysis", "cost-benefit analysis" AND "Tanzania".
Only full health economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit analyses) comparing a PET-based strategy with different invasive and non-invasive diagnostic strategies in the clinical work-up of cancer patients were considered for inclusion.
In economic evaluations (cost-utility analysis), utility in anticipation of exercise should be expressed in terms such as quality-adjusted life years (QALY), as should the possible losses of utility in anticipation for the activity forgone in favor of exercise [ 13].
In the remaining evaluations, costs and QALYs were secondary outcomes.
