Sentence examples for low cost-effectiveness from inspiring English sources
The phrase "low cost-effectiveness" is not correct in standard English usage
It seems to combine two concepts that are typically expressed separately, as "low cost" and "low effectiveness." Example: "The project's low cost-effectiveness means we need to reconsider our approach."
Instead they will expand their tiered formularies so that patients who want very expensive products of low cost-effectiveness will pay a large part, but not all, of the cost.
Ordering too many tests poses significant danger, not only because of low cost-effectiveness but also because a falsely abnormal test result requires a further series of tests to prove or disprove its accuracy.
In his book, Breaking the Vicious Circle, supreme court justice Steven Breyer cites the low cost-effectiveness of the EPA's ban of asbestos pipe, shingles, coating and paper, which the most optimistic estimates suggested would prevent seven or eight premature deaths over 13 years – at a cost of approximately $250m.
Sometimes low values indicate high cost-effectiveness, and sometimes they indicate low cost-effectiveness, so there is not a consistent scenario across the row.
However, routine foreign-body detection with magnetic resonance imaging is not feasible in an emergency department workflow due to poor accessibility, low cost-effectiveness, and particularly the risk for patients with possibly ferromagnetic foreign bodies associated with the strong magnetic field [11, 12].
Major conclusions are that the highest cost-effectiveness can be achieved by combining measures; freight rolling stock has a high cost-effectiveness on its own as well as in combination with other measures, especially when combined with track measures; noise barriers, in particular high ones, have a low cost-effectiveness.
Results: Otoacoustic emissions testing at birth followed by repeat testing at follow up demonstrated the lowest cost ($13 per infant) and had the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio ($5100 per infant with hearing loss identified).
This entails utilising a process consisting of selecting first the intervention with the lowest cost-effectiveness ratio and then calculating the total costs of averting this health problem.
The 30 countries with the lowest cost-effectiveness estimates are geographically more diverse and include only three in sub-Saharan Africa (Swaziland, South Africa and Namibia).
Doubling the cost of tight glycemic control (i.e., increasing the cost of treating active diabetes) produces the lowest or second lowest cost-effectiveness ratio in each analysis population.
The subsequent step chooses the intervention with the second lowest cost-effectiveness ratio and also calculating the total costs of averting this health problem and so on until the budget is exhausted.
