While many studies suggest that single- and multi-component interventions are effective, there are few cost-effectiveness evaluations of these interventions and still fewer cost-effectiveness evaluations of different combinations of interventions [ 8, 9].
Parenting programmes are effective in reducing child conduct problems but only few cost-effectiveness studies are published [ 3].
Few cost-effectiveness analyses in AD drug treatment show divergent results in costs saving [6, 7], probably because of different methodologies.
Although there have been few cost-effectiveness evaluations of neuromodulatory techniques for the treatment of primary headache disorders, such studies have generally included time horizons of at least 3 years [37 39].
There have been very few cost-effectiveness evaluations of albumin use in the ICU.
There have been, however, a few cost-effectiveness evaluations on related therapies.
A few cost-effectiveness studies can be found, and only a couple of complete health economic studies have reported health utilities as outcome in their cost-effectiveness analyses.
The effectiveness of such programmes in primary healthcare is well evidenced, but very few cost-effectiveness analyses have been conducted and none which specifically consider the Italian context.
A few cost-effectiveness studies have been conducted in the UK, based on which a number of improvement projects for home oxygen assessment and review (HOS-AR) services have been, and are being, conducted to determine the best methods of reform/rationalisation [ 8- 11].
A further challenge in IHC research is the preference of researchers and funders typically prefer investigations that are linear, showing a clear cause and effect, with few confounders and cost effectiveness can clearly be determined [ 4].
There are relatively few examples of published cost effectiveness analyses for IGT, many of these procedures being at least as effective as traditional techniques, with lower overall costs.
