Your English writing platform
Free sign upExact(14)
At a ceiling ratio of €8,000 per QALY gained, the probability of cost-utility of the intervention was 93%.
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%.
At a ceiling ratio of €80,000/QALYY gained, the probability of cost-effectiveness changed from 68%to73%3% from the societal perspective.
For an assumed willingness-to-pay threshold value of EUR50,000/QALY gained, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective is 45-55%.
Bootstrap sensitivity analysis also suggested that at a willingness to pay threshold of €20 000 per QALY gained the probability of cataract surgery being acceptable was 51.7% in subgroup A, 59. 0% in subgroup B and 46.
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.
Similar(46)
At a WTP threshold of 300,000 THB per QALY gained, the probabilities that related HSCT would be cost-effective were 96%, 88%, 70%, and 60% for patient aged 1, 10, 15, and 17 years, respectively.
At a WTP threshold of 100,000 THB per QALY gained, the probabilities that related HSCT would be cost-effective were 81%, 59%, 29%, and 18% for patients aged 1, 10, 15, and 17 years, respectively.
At a WTP threshold of 300,000 THB per QALY gained, the probabilities that unrelated HSCT would be cost-effective were 68% and 54% for patient aged 1 and 10 years, respectively.
Assuming a threshold value of $50,000 for one year of life gained, the calculated probability of voriconazole being cost-effective was 33% for the full study population and 85% for the AML subgroup.
The curve shows that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the estimated probability that MR-prednisone is cost-effective was 84% and approached 95% at a willingness-to-pay of £30,000 per QALY gained.
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