Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(2)
Exact(2)
At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gain, the probability that indacaterol is cost-effective is approximately 82%and84%84 % for the comparisons with salmeterol and tiotropium respectively.
At realistic levels of willingness to pay for a QALY gain, the probability that hybrid prostheses are the most cost effective option is around 75% for patients aged 70.
Similar(58)
At a ceiling ratio of €80,000/QALYY gained, the probability of cost-effectiveness changed from 68%to73%3% from the societal perspective.
At a ceiling ratio of €8,000 per QALY gained, the probability of cost-utility of the intervention was 93%.
When considering the NICE WTP threshold of between £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that etanercept was the preferred option was between 62% and 70% [ 19].
For an assumed willingness-to-pay threshold value of EUR50,000/QALY gained, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective is 45-55%.
If decision makers were willing to pay at least £5000 per QCM gained, the probability of hospital being more cost-effective under this assumption would be 95%.
For willingness-to-pay values ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 per QALY gained, the probability that 4LB is more cost effective than SSB increased from 51% to 63%.
When the threshold increases to JPY 10 million (€91 000) per QALY gained, the probability of cost effectiveness was 40.4% for all HER2-positive populations, 54.9% for the IHC 2+/FISH+ or IHC 3+ population, and 75.1% for the IHC 3+ population.
Thus, the interpretation of the AFFIRM study is that, given a maximum acceptable ceiling ratio of $50,000 per life year gained, the probability that rate-control is cost-effective compared to rhythm-control is 0.9994.
If decision makers were willing to pay at least £3000 per QCM gained, the probability of hospital being more cost-effective under the assumption of higher sensitivity in hospital would be 95%.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com